Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings on S. Res. 301 : hearings before a select committee to study censure charges United States Senate ; Eighty-third Congress, second session pursuant to the order on S. Res. 301 and amendments, a resolution to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy"

See other formats


T. 


.l^'b*  9335. 4A33n 


Given  By 

W,  a  SUPT.  OF  D.OCUMENX.S 


^ 


I,? 


R-* 


mk: 


HEARINGS  ON  S.  RES.  301 


HEARINGS 

BEiFORE  A 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  TO  STUDY 

CENSURE  CHARGES 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD  CONGRESS 

SECOND  SESSION 
PURSUANT  TO  THE  ORDER  ON 

S.  Res.  301 

AND  AMENDMENTS 
A  RESOLUTION  TO  CENSURE  THE  SENATOR  FROM 

WISCONSIN,  MR.  McCarthy 


AUGUST  31,  SEPTEMBER  1,  2,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  13  AND  17,  1954 


PARTI 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Select  CJommlttee  on  S.  Res.  301 


HEARINGS  ON  S.  RES.  301 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  A 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  TO  STUDY 

CENSUEE  CHARGES 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD  CONGKESS 

SECOND  SESSION 
PDRSTJANT  TO  THE  ORDER  ON 

S.  Res.  301 

AND  AMENDMENTS 
A  RESOLUTION  TO  CENSURE  THE  SENATOR  FROM 

WISCONSIN,  MR.  McCarthy 


AUGUST  31,  SEPTEMBER  1,  2,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  13  AND  17,  1954 


PART  1 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Select  Committee  on  S.  Res.  301 


/"^i- 


UNITED  STATES 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
62461  WASHINGTON  :   1954 


7335 


Boston  Public  Library 
'uperintendent  of  Documents 

OCT  2  7  1954 


SELECT  COMMITTEE  TO  STUDY  CENSURE  CHARGES 

ARTHUR  V.  WATKINS,  Utah,  Chairman 
EDWIN  C.  JOHNSON,  Colorado,  Vice  Chairman 
FRANK  CARLSON,  Kansas  JOHN  C.  STENNIS,  Mississippi 

FRANCIS  CASE,  South  Dakota  SAM  J.  ERVIN,  Jk.,  North  Carolina 

II 


^  CONTENTS 

0 


Statements:  ,.  ^  .        .       ^*^* 

Black,  Senator  Hugo:  1934  statement  on  shielding  wrong-doing  m 

government 2"' 

Carlson,  Senator  Frank:  Propriety  of  administrative  assistants  par- 
ticipating in  senate  committee  or  subcommittee  hearings 249 

Flanders,  Senator  Ralph  E. : 

June  1,  1954,  Floor  speech 308 

June  11,  1954,  Floor  speech 310 

Hennings,  Senator  Thomas  0.  Jr. :  August  2,  1954,  Floor  speech 52 

Johnson,  Senator  Edwin  C. :  Denver  Post  article  of  March  12,  19o4 —  35 
McCarthy,  Senator  Joseph  R. : 

Opening 14 

Lustron 5^ 

Nixon,  Congressman  Richard :  April  22,  1948,  Floor  speech 270,  274 

Watkins,  Senator  Arthur  V.  (Chairman)  : 

Opening 11 

Memorial  to  the  late  Senator  Burnet  R.  Maybank 39 

Impartiality  question 40 

Right  of  a  Senator  to  lecture  a  witness  in  a  hearing 252 

Witnesses : 
Senators : 

Hayden,   Carl 359 

McCarthy,  Joseph  R. : 

Before  Mundt  Committee  on  May  5, 1954,  relative  to  2i^-page 
document : 

Excerpts 95 

In  toto Part  2,  611 

Direct  examination . 181,  259,  278,  325 

Cross  examination 327,  375,  417 

Others : 

Anastos,  C.  George 518 

Cohn,  Roy 443 

Collier,  Robert  A. : 

Before  Mundt  Committee  relative  to  2i^-page  document: 

Excerpts 98 

In  toto : 

May  5,  1954 Part  2,  575 

May  6,  1954 Part  2,  608 

Hall,  Joseph  W.,  Jr 66 

Harding,  William  J.,  Jr , 175 

Juliana,  James  N 514 

Lawton,  Major  General  Kirke  B.  (retired)  accompanied  by  John 

E.  Pernice  (counsel) 165,  433 

Livin2;stone,  B.  L 63 

Nelson,  Clifford  J 510 

Peress,  Major  Irving : 

Before  McCarthy  Committee  on  January  30, 1954 206 

Watkins,  Charles  L. : 

Direct  examination 535 

Cross-examination 540a 

Winchell,  Walter 145 

Woodward,  William  J 449 

Zwicker,  Brigadier  General  Ralph  W. : 

Before  McCarthy  Committee  on  February  18,  1954 : 

Excerpts 69 

In  toto 237 

Before  Select  Committee  on  September  13,  1954 453 

m 


IV  CONTENTS 

Documents :  Pago 

Addendum  A  (Law  Brief  of  Committee  Connsel) Part  2  541 

Addendum  B  (Law  Brief  of  Senator  McCarthy's  Counsel) Part  2  554 

Addendum  to  H-H-H  subcommittee  report 363 

(Also  on  page  52a  of  Appendix  III,  this  Index.) 
Amendments  to  S.  Res.  301 : 

Bush  4 

Flanders  (1  to  33) 5 

Fulbright  (1  to  6) 2 

Morse   (a  to  g) 3 

Smith   , 3 

Appendix 

I — Testimony  of  Robert  A.  Collier  before  Mundt  Committee  on : 

May  5,  1954 Part  2  575 

May  6,  1954 Part  2  008 

II — Testimony  of    Senator   Joseph   R.   McCarthy   before   Mimdt 

Committee  on  May  5,  1954 Part  2  611 

III- — H-H-H  subcommittee  report  on  S.  Res.  187  and  S.  Res.  3(>4 

of  S2d  Congress Part  2  629 

Army  Regulations,  Change  No.  1  of  (dated  May  28,  1952—380-10)—       458 

Classified  Documents,  Definitions  and  Categories 412 

Espionage  Act,  section  798  of 395 

Internal  Security  Act,  Progress  Report  by  Subcommittee  of  Senate 
on  Administration  of, 

(1951)     419 

(July  30,  1953) 419 

Legislative  Reorganization  Act  1946,    Section   102-G 2()7 

Memorandum,  by  Attorney  General  Tom  Clark  to   all  Government 

Departments,  Agencies,  and  Commissions — April  23,  1948 512 

Memorandum  from  Attorney  General  Herbert  Brownell  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States 123 

Mundt  Committee  Report  (page  76)  on  the  214-page  document 317 

Nixon,  Congressman  Richard  M. — Speech  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives on  April  22,  1948 422 

Notice  of  Hearings  on  S.  Res.  301 8 

Oath  of  Office  for  Federal  Employees 263 

Order  of  the  Senate  on  S.  Res.  301 1 

Payroll  record  of  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the 

Senate  for  January  1953 524 

Precedents  for  the  appointment  of  committee  members  by  Chairman 

(August  24,  1912,  Congressional  Record,  p.-  11812) 537 

Presidential  Directive  of  March  13,  1948 457 

Rules  of  Procedure : 

Select    Committee 10, 13 

Conunittee  on  Government  Operations 351 

Rules  of  the  Senate,  No.  25  (page  42  Senate  Manual) 372 

Specifications : 

No.  1 — Incidents  of  Contempt  of  the  Senate  or  a  Senatorial  Committee 

(Fulbright  3,  Morse  a,   Flanders  17) 16 

No.  II — I)icidents  of  encouragement  of  V.  S.  employees  to  violate  the 
law  and   their  oaths  of  oflBce  or  Executive  orders    (Fulbright  5, 

Morse  e,  Flanders  14) S3 

No.  Ill — Incidents  involving  receipt  or  use  of  confidential  or  classified 
documents  or  other  confidential   information  from  executive  files 

(Morse  d,  Flanders  13) 94 

No.    IV — Incidents    involving    abuse    of    colleagues    in    the    Senate 

(Flanders  30.  Morse  b) 61 

No.  V — Incidents  relating  to  Ralph  Zwicker.  a  general  officer  of  the 

Army  ot  the  United  States  (Fulbright  4,  Morse  c,  Flanders  10) 69 

S.  Res.  301  of  Kid  c:<mgress 1 

S.  Res.  1S7  of  82d  Congres.s 20,279 

S.  Res.  300  of  S2d  Congress 31 

United  States  Code: 

Title  5.  Section  »i52 411 

Title  IS.  Swtion  4 265 

Vote  Record  im  S.  Res.  .300  of  S2d  Congress 32 

Zwicker,  Brig.  Gen.  Riilph  W.,  Military  record  of 80 


CONTENTS  V 

Exhibits :  „ 

H-H-H  Subcommittee  Report:  ^»^e 

No.  3 ;3 

No.  4 j^ 

No.  5 ^^ 

No.  7 26 

No.   8 ^6 

No.  9 27 

No.   10 2< 

No.  11 ^^ 

No.  12 29 

-      No.  12a f^ 

No.   13 ^1 

No.  14 ^1 

No.   17 32 

No.  18 32 

No.  19 35 

No.  20 43 

No.   21 44 

No.  3(1 291 

No.   37 294 

No.  38 44 

No.   40 45 

No.  41 45 

No.   42 300 

No.  44 49 

No.   45 51 

Select  Committee : 

No.  1 47 

No.  2 80 

No.   3 123 

Senator  McCarthy : 

No.  1 279 

No.  2 280 

No.   3 294 

No.  4 304 

No.  5   (2i/(.-page  document) — not  reproduced 314,326 

JLietters : 

Brownell,  Attornev  General  Herbert,  to  Senator  Mundt : 

jMav  6.  1954 114 

May  13,  1954 116 

Cotter,  Paul  J.,  to  Senator  McCarthy:  November  7,  1952 44 

Eisenhower,  President  Dwight  D.,  to  Secretary  of  Defense  Wilson : 

May  17,  1954 122 

Gillette,  Senator  Guy  M.,  to  Senator  McCarthy  : 

September  17,  1951 279 

September  25,  1951 281,  23 

October  1,  1951 23 

December  6.  19.51 ^ 26 

December  11,  19.51 27 

Deceml)er  21.  19.51 28 

January  10,  1952 30 

May  7,  1952 32 

May  10,  1952 290,  43 

To  Senator  Havden  :  September  10,  1952 294 

Hayden,  Senator  Carl,  to  Darrell  St.  Clair :  November  20,  1952 362 

Hennings,  Senator  Thomas  C,  Jr..  to  Senator  :McCarthy :  November 

21,   1952 45 

Kiermas.  Ray,  to  Paul  J.  Cotter:  Xovemlier  10,  1052 45 

Mnndt,    Senator   Karl   E.,   to   Attorney   General   Herbert    Brownell: 

May  5,  1954 114 

McCarthy,  Senator  Joseph  R.,  to  Senator  Gillette: 

September  17,  1951 279,280 

October  4,  1951 23 

December  6,  1951 24 

December  7,  1951 26 


VI  CONTENTS 

Letters — Continued 

McCarthy,  Senator  Joseph  R.,  to  Senator  Gillette — Continued  Pas» 

December  19,  1951 27 

January  4,  1952 29 

May  8,  1952 32,35 

May  11,  1952 44 

To  Senator  Hayden,  March  21,  1952 30 

To  Senator  Hennings : 

November  28,  1952 49,  304 

December  1,  1952 51 

McDaniel,  Adjutant  General  R.  D.,  to  Commanding  General,  First 

Army  :  February  8,  1954 454 

Stevens,  Secretary  of  the  Army  Robert  S.,  to  Senator  McCarthy  :  Febru- 
ary 16,  1954 462 

Wilson,  Secretary  of  Defense  C.  E.,  to  Senator  Watkins :  September 

10,  1954 434 

Telegrams : 

Hayden,  Senator  Carl,  to  Senator  Monroney :  November  19, 1952 361 

Hennings,  Senator  Thomas  C,  Jr.,  to  Senator  McCarthy : 

"not  sent"  November  14, 1952 300 

November  21,  1952 47 

McCarthy,  Senator  Joseph  R.,  to  Senator  Jackson :  February  21,  1954_       391 
Monroney,  Senator  A.  S.  Mike,  to  Senator  Hayden  :  November  21,  1952_       361 
Rulings  of  the  Chair  : 

On  motion  by  Senator  McCarthy  to  dismiss  Specification  No.  I 20 

On  motion  by  Senator  McCarthy  to  insert  article  from  Denver  Post 36 

On  offer  by  Senator  McCarthy  of  views  of  Justice  Black 261 

On  admissibility  of  acts  or  statements  of  individual  Senators 268 

On  motion  of  Senator  McCarthy  that  the  Committee  take  judicial 
notice  that  the  charges  under   S.  Res.  187  of  82d  Congress  were 

preferred  in  open  session 282 

On  offer  in  evidence  of  the  214  page  document  by  Senator  McCarthy 325 

On  request  that  the  Committee  obtain  certain  testimony  from  the 

Senate    Parliamentarian 366 

On  motion  by  Committee  Counsel  that  Senator  McCarthy  be  required 

to  divulge  the  name  of  the  informant  on  the  2Y2  page  document 396 

On  offer  hj   Senator  McCarthy  of  testimony  tending  to  prove  the 

falsity  of  the  charges  under  S.  Res.  187  of  82d  Congress 296 

Other  Material : 

Case,  Senator  Francis,  offer  that  Senator  McCarthy's  utterance  about 

Senator  Heudrickson  be  considered  in  light,  of  present  facts 425 

Lawton,   Major  General  Kirke  B.- — ^"I  must  respectfully  decline  to 

an.swer" 167 

McCarthy,  Senator  Joseph  R. : 

a.  Statement  in  Mundt  hearings  about  Senator  Flanders 63 

b.  To  Reporter  B.  L.  Livinavstone  about  Senator  Flanders 64 

c.  To  Reporter  Joseph  W.  Hall,  Jr.,  about  Senator  Heudrickson 68 

d.  To  General  Zwicker  concerning  fitness  to  wear  the  uniform 332 

e.  Invitation  to  2,000,000  Federal  employees 262 

f.  Relative  to  his  authority  to  receive  information  about  wrong- 

doing         262 

g.  Scope  of  invitation  to  the  Civil  Service  Employees 265 

h.  Had  no  desire  to  appear  before  H-H-H  Subcommittee  unless 

ordered 288 

i.    Someone  on  H-H-H  Subcommittee  was  dishonest 299 

j.  November  21st  telegram  was  first  request  to  appear 299 

k.  Discussion  with  Senator  Gillette  about  subpoena 305 

1.    Conversation  with  Senator  Heudrickson  by  phone 306 

m.  Admission  of  having  made  the  alleged  remark  about  Senator 

Heudrickson 306 

Winchell,  Walter,  reference  to  2y2-page  document 150 

Zwicker,  Brigadier  General  Ralph  W.,  overheard  by  William  J.  Hard- 
ing, Jr.,  to  have  referred  to  Senator  McCarthy 179 


HEAEINGS  ON  SENATE  KESOLUTION  301 


TUESDAY,   AUGUST   31,    1954 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges  Pursuant 

TO  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

Washington,  D.  G. 

The  select  committee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  10 :  20  a.  m.,  in  the 
caucus  room,  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Arthur  V.  Watkins 
(chairman)  presidino;. 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (chairman),  Johnson  of  Colorado  (vice 
chairman),  Stennis,  Carlson,  Case,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel 
to  the  committee ;  Guy  G.  deFuria,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee ; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee ;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  member ; 
Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator  Watkins' 
staff  on  loan  to  the  committee ;  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams,  counsel 
to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A,  Neill  and  Brent 
Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  There  will  now  be  f)laced  in  the  record  Senate 
Resolution  301  of  the  83d  Congress,  together  with  the  amendments 
proposed  thereto  and  the  order  of  the  Senate  dated  August  2,  1954, 
which  set  up  this  committee  and  referred  that  resolution  and  those 
amendments  to  us. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows :) 

[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 
ORDER 

Ordered,  That  S.  Res.  301,  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  INIr.  Mc- 
Carthy, submitted  by  Senator  Flanders  on  July  30,  and  amendments  proposed 
thereto,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  as  provided  in  the  motion  set  forth 
below  and  agreed  to  by  the  Senate  on  Monday,  August  2  (legislative  day,  Friday, 
July  2,  19.54)  : 

"Mr.  President,  I  move  to  refer  the  pending  resolution  (S.  Res.  301)  together 
with  all  amendments  proposed  thereto,  .to  a  select  committee  to  be  composed  of 
8  Republicans  and  3  Democrats  who  shall  be  named  by  the  Vice  President :  And 
ordered  further.  That  the  committee,  which  shall  be  authorized  to  hold  hearings, 
to  sit  and  act  at  such  times  and  places  during  the  sessions,  recesses,  and  adjourned 
periods  of  the  Senate,  to  require  by  subpeua  or  otherwise  the  attendance  of  such 
witnesses  and  the  production  of  such  correspondence,  books,  papers,  and  docu- 
ments, and  to  take  such  testimony  as  it  deems  advisable,  and  that  the  committee 
be  instructed  to  act  and  make  a  report  to  this  Body  priod  to  the  adjournment 
sine  die  of  the  Senate  in  the  second  session  of  the  83d  Congress. 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 
RESOLUTION 

Resolved,  That  the  conduct  of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy, 
is  unbecoming  a  Member  of  the  United  States  Senate,  is  contrary  to  senatorial 
traditions,  and  tends  to  bring  the  Senate  into  disrepute,  and  such  conduct  is 
hereby  condemned. 

1 


2  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

[S.  Res.  301,  83(1  Coug.,  2d  sess.] 

PROPOSED  AMENDMENT  Proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strike  the  period  and  insert  the 
following :  "for  the  following  reason  : 

"(1)  The  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  while  a  member  of  the  committee 
having  jurisdiction  over  the  affairs  of  the  Lustron  Company,  a  corporation 
financed  by  Government  money,  received  $10,000  without  rendering  services  of 
comparable  value ;". 

[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDIMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution 
(S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

On  page  1.  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strilie  the  period  and  insert 
the  following :  "for  the  following  reason  : 

"(2)  In  public  hearings,  before  the  Senate  Permanent  Investigations  Sub- 
committee, of  which  he  was  chairman,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  strongly 
implied  that  Annie  Lee  Moss  was  known  to  be  a  member  of  the  Communist 
Party  and  that  if  she  testified  she  would  perjure  herself,  before  he  had  given 
her  an  opportunity  to  testify  in  her  own  behalf;". 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution 
(S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condenmed",  strike  the  period  and  insert 
the  following  "for  the  following  reason  : 

"(3)  Although  repeatedly  invited  to  testify  by  a  committee  of  this  Senate 
headed  by  the  Senator  from  Iowa,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  denounced 
the  committee  and  contemptuously  refused  to  comply  with  its  request ;". 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution 
(S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz  : 

On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strike  the  period  and  insert 
the  following :  "for  the  following  reason  : 

"(4)  Without  justification,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  impugned  the 
loyalty,  patriotism,  and  character  of  General  Ralph  Zwicker ;". 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution 
(S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strike  out  the  period  and  insert 
the  following :  "for  the  following  reason  : 

"(5)  The  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  openly,  in  a  public  manner  before 
nationwide  television,  invited  and  urged  employees  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  violate  the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office ;". 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended   to   be  proposed  by  Mr.   Fulbright   to  the   resolution 
(S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strike  out  the  period  and  insert 
the  following :  "for  the  following  reason : 

"(6)  The  Junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  in  a  speech  on  June  14,  1951,  without 
proof  or  other  justification  made  an  unwarranted  attack  upon  General  George 
C.  MarshaU." 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  6 

[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  (in  the  nature  of  a  substitute)  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr. 
Smith  of  New  Jersey  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator 
from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

Strike  out  all  after  "Resolved,"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 
"That  the  Senate  views  with  real  concern  the  growing  divisiveness  and  disunity 
in  the  Senate  and  throughout  the  country  over  the  problems  created  by  the  fact 
that  there  had  been  infiltration  of  Communists  and  other  security  risks  into 
sensitive  positions,  and  the  methods  and  procedures  employed  in  exposing  and 
eliminating  such  security  risks ;  and  be  it  further 

^'Resolved,  That  it  is  the  immediate  responsibility  of  the  Senate  to  deal  with 
this  critical  situation  in  an  objective,  judicial,  and  statesmanlike  manner ;  and 
be  it  further 

"Resolved,  that-  the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  Immediately  appoint 
a  special  bipartisan  committee  of  the  Senate  to  investigate  and  report  with  recom- 
mendations to  the  Senate  on  this  controversial  matter.  The  committee  shall  be 
composed  of  six  Senators,  three  of  whom  shall  be  nominated  \)j  the  Republican 
Policy  Committee,  and  three  by  the  Democratic  Policy  Committee.  Tlie  Vice 
President  shall  be  ex  officio  chairman  of  the  group.  The  committee  shall  report 
with  recommendations  to  the  Senate  not  later  than  February  1,  1955." 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  ( S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

On  page  1,  lines  4  and  5,  strike  out  the  words  "and  such  conduct  is  hereby 
condemned.",  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  "because  the  said  Mr. 
McCarthy — 

"(a)  declined  to  comply  with  a  request  made  by  letter  on  November  21, 
1952,  by  the  chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration,  that  he  appear  before 
the  subcommittee  to  supply  information  concerning  certain  specific  matters 
involving  his  activities  as  a  Member  of  the  Senate ; 

"(b)  unfairly  accused  his  fellow  Senators  Gillette,  Monroney,  Hendrick- 
son,  Hayden,  and  Hennings  of  improper  conduct  in  carrying  out  their  duties 
as  Senators; 

"(c)  as  chairman  of  a  committee  resorted  to  abusive  conduct  in  his 
interrogation  of  General  Ralph  Zwicker,  including  a  charge  that  General 
Zwicker  was  unfit  to  wear  the  uniform,  during  the  appearance  of  General 
Zwicker  as  a  witness  before  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations 
of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Government  Operations  on  February  18,  1954; 

"(d)  received  and  made  use  of  confidential  information  unlawfully 
obtained  from  a  document  in  executive  files  upon  which  document  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  had  placed  its  highest  classification ;  and 
offered  such  information  to  a  lawfully  constituted  Senate  subcommittee  in 
the  form'  of  a  spurious  document  which  he  falsely  asserted  to  the  subcom- 
mittee to  be  'a  letter  from  the  FBI.' ; 

"(e)  openly  invited  and  incited  employees  of  the  Government  to  violate 
the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office  by  urging  them  to  make  available  infor- 
mation, including  classified  information,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  em- 
ployee would  be  of  assistance  to  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  in 
conducting  his  investigations,  even  though  the  supplying  of  such  informa- 
tion by  the  employee  would  be  illegal  and  in  violation  of  Presidential  order 
and  contrary  to  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Chief  Executive  under  the 
separation-of -powers  doctrine ; 

"(f)  attempted  to  invade  the  constitutional  power  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  conduct  the  foreign  relations  of  the  United  States  by 
carrying  on  negotiations  with  certain  Greek  shipowners  in  respect  to  foreign 
trade  policies,  even  though  the  executive  branch  of  our  Government  had  a 
few  weeks  previously  entered  into  an  luiderstanding  with  the  Greek  Gov- 
ernment in  respect  to  banning  the  flow  of  strategic  materials  to  Communist 
countries ;  and 

"(g)  permitted  and  ratified  over  a  period  of  several  months  in  1953  and 
1954  the  abuse  of  Senatorial  privilege  by  Mr.  Roy  Cohn,  chief  counsel  to 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

the  Permanent  Investigations  Subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Government  Operations  of  whicli  committee  and  subcommittee  the  junior 
Senator  from  Wisconsin  is  chairman,  Mr.  Colin's  abuse  having  been  directed 
toward  attempting  to  secure  preferential  treatment  for  Private  David  Schine 
by  the  Department  of  the  Army,  at  a  time  when  the  Army  was  under 
investigation  by  the  committee. 
'Sec.  2.  It  is  the  sense  of  the  Senate  that  such  conduct  is  hereby  condemned." 


[S.  Res.  301,  83d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AMENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Bush  to  the  resolution  ( S.  Res. 

301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

Strike  out  all  after  "Resolvcfl,"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 
"That  rule  XV  of  the  Standing  Rules  of  the  Senate  is  amended  by  inserting  at  the 
end  thereof  the  following : 

"  '3.  All  bills  and  resolutions  to  authorize  the  investigation  of  a  particular 
subject  matter  shall  define  such  subject  matter  clearly,  and  shall  state  the  need 
for  such  investigation  and  the  general  objects  thereof.' 

"Sec.  2.  Rule  XXV  of  such  Standing  Rules  is  amended  by  deleting  the  title 
'standing  Committees'  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  'Powers  and  Duties  of 
Committees'. 

"Sec.  3.  Paragraph  (b)  of  subsection  3  of  such  rule  XXV  is  amended  to  read 
as  follows : 

"'(b)  Unless  the  committee  otherwise  provides,  one  member  shall  constitute 
a  quorum  for  the  receipt  of  evidence  and  the  taking  of  testimony ;  but  no  witness 
shall  be  compelled  to  give  oral  testimony  before  less  than  two  members  if, 
prior  to  testifying,  he  objects  to  the  presence  of  only  one  member.' 

"Sec.  4.  Such  rule  XXV  is  amended  by  inserting  at  the  end  thereof  the  follow- 
ing subsections : 

".'5.  The  rules  of  the  committees  shall  be  the  rules  of  the  subcommittees  so 
far  as  applicable.  Committees  and  subcommittees  may  adopt  additional  rules 
not  inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  the  Senate. 

"  '6.  All  hearings  conducted  by  committee  shall  be  open  to  the  public,  except 
executive  sessions  for  marking  up  bills  or  for  voting  or  where  the  committee 
by  a  majority  vote  orders  an  executive  session. 

"  '7.  Unless  otherwise  provided,  committee  action  shall  be  by  vote  of  a  majority 
of  a  quorum. 

"  '8.  An  investigating  subcommittee  of  any  committee  may  be  authorized  only 
by  a  majority  vote  of  the  committee. 

"  '9.  No  committee  hearing  shall  be  held  unless  .specifically  authorized  by  the 
committee. 

"  '10.  No  committee  hearing  shall  be  held  in  any  place  outside  of  the  District 
of  Columbia  unless  authorized  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  committee. 

"  '11.  No  measure,  finding,  or  recommendation  shall  be  reported  from  any 
committee  unless  a  majority  of  the  committee  were  actually  present. 

"  '12.  No  testimony  taken  or  material  presented  in  an  executive  session  shall 
be  made  public,  either  in  whole  or  in  part  or  by  way  of  summary,  unless  au- 
thorized by  a  majority  vote  of  the  committee. 

"  '13.  No  person  shall  be  employed  for  or  assigned  to  investigate  activities 
until  approved  by  the  committee. 

"  '14.  Unless  otherwise  provided,  subpenas  to  require  the  attendance  of  wit- 
nesses, the  giving  of  testimony,  and  the  production  of  books,  papers,  or  other 
evidence  shall  be  issued  only  by  authority  of  tlie  committee,  shall  be  signed  by 
the  chairman  or  any  member  designated  by  the  chairman,  and  may  he  served  by 
any  person  designated  by  the  committee,  the  cliairman,  or  the  signing  member. 

"'15.  No  witness  shall  be  compelled  to  give  oral  testimony  for  broadcast,  or 
for  direct  reproduction  by  motion  picture  photography,  recording,  or  otherwise 
in  news  and  entertainment  media  if  he  objects. 

"  '16.  Oaths  may  be  administered  and  hearings  may  be  conducted  and  presided 
over  by  the  chairman  or  any  member  designated  by  the  chairman. 

"  '17.  AVitnesses  shall  be  permitted  to  be  advised  by  counsel  of  their  legal 
rights  while  giving  testimony,  and  unless  the  presiding  member  otherwise  directs, 
to  be  accompanied  by  counsel  at  the  stand. 

"  '18.  AVitnesses,  counsel,  and  other  persons  present  at  committee  hearings 
shall  maintain  proper  order  and  decorum ;  counsel  shall  observe  the  standards  of 
ethics  and  deportment  generally  required  of  attorneys  at  Jaw.  The  chairman 
may  punish  breaches  of  this  ijrovision  by  censure  or  by  exclusion  from  the  com- 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  5 

mittee's  hearings,  and  the  committee  may  punish  by  citation  to  the  Senate  for 
contempt. 

"  '19.  Whenever  the  committee  determines  that  evidence  relating  to  a  question 
under  inquiry  may  tend  to  defame,  degrade,  or  incriminate  persons  called  as 
witnesses  therein,  the  committee  shall  observe  the  following  additional  pro- 
cedure, so  far  as  may  be  practicable  and  necessary  for  the  protection  of  such 

persons :  ^  ,  ^    u. 

"'(a)  The  subject  of  each  hearing  shall  be   clearly  stated   at   the   outset 

thereof,  and  evidence  sought  to  be  elicited  shall  be  pertinent  to  the  subject  as  so 

'"'(b)  Preliminary  staff  inquiries  may  be  directed  by  the  chairman,  but  no 
major  phase  of  the  investigation  shall  be  developed  by  calling  witnesses  until 
approved  by  the  committee. 

"'(c)  All  testimony,  whether  compelled  or  volunteered,  shall  be  given  under 

oath.  ,         .        ^.  J.   .-, 

"'(d)  Counsel  for  witnesses  may  be  permitted,  in  the  discretion  or  the 
presiding  member  and  as  justice  may  require,  to  be  heard  briefly  on  points  of 
right  and  procedure,  to  examine  their  clients  briefly  for  purposes  of  amplifica- 
tion and  clarification,  and  to  address  pertinent  questions  by  written  interro- 
gatory to  other  witnesses  whose  testimony  pertains  to  their  clients. 

"'(e)  Testimony  shall  be  heard  in  executive  session,  the  witness  willing, 
when  necessary  to  shield  the  witness  or  other  persons  about  whom  he  may 

testify. 

"•(f)  The  secrecy  of  executive  sessions  and  of  all  matters  and  material  not 
expressly  released  by  the  committee  shall  be  rigorously  enforced. 

"'(g)  Witnesses  shall  be  permitted  brief  explanations  of  aflSirmative  or 
negative  responses,  and  may  submit  concise,  pertinent  statements,  orally  or  in 
writing,  for  inclusion  in  the  record  at  the  opening  or  close  of  tiieir  testimony. 

"  '(h)  An  accurate  verbatim  transcript  shall  be  made  of  all  testimony,  and  no 
alterations  of  meaning  shall  be  permitted  therein. 

"'(i)  Each  witness  may  obtain  transcript  copies  of  his  testimony  given 
publicly  by  paying  the  cost  thereof ;  copies  of  his  testimony  given  in  executive 
session  shall  be  furnished  the  witness  at  cost  if  the  testimony  has  been  released 
or  publicly  disclosed,  or  if  the  chairman  so  orders. 

"'(j)  No  testimony  given  in  executive  session  shall  be  publicly  disclosed  in 
part  only,  except  when  the  committee  decides  that  deletions  from  the  trans- 
cript are  required  by  considerations  of  national  security. 

"  '20.  Whenever  the  committee  determines  that  any  testimony,  statement, 
release,  or  other  evidence  or  utterance  relating  to  a  question  under  inquiry  may 
tend  to  defame,  degrade,  or  incriminate  persuus  who  are  not  witnesses,  the 
committee  shall  observe  the  following  additional  procedures,  so  far  as  may  be 
practicable  and  necessary  for  the  protection  of  such  persons : 

"'(a)  Persons  so  affected  shall  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  appear  as 
witnesses,  promptly  and  at  the  same  place  if  possible,  and  under  subpena  if 
they  so  elect.  Testimony  relating  to  the  adverse  evidence  or  utterance  shall  be 
subject  to  applicable  provisions  of  subsection  19  of  this  rule. 

"'(b)  Each  such  person  may,  in  lieu  of  appearing  as  a  witness,  submit  a 
concise,  jjertinent  sworn  statement  which  shall  be  incorporated  in  the  record 
of  the  hearing  to  which  the  adverse  evidence  or  utterance  relates. 

"  '21.  The  chairman  or  a  member  shall  when  practicable  consult  with  appro- 
priate Federal  law-enforcement  agencies  with  respect  to  any  phase  of  an  in- 
vestigation which  may  result  in  evidence  exposing  the  commission  of  Federal 
crimes,  and  the  results  of  such  consultation  shall  be  reported  to  the  committee 
before  witnesses  are  called  to  testify  tlierein. 

"  '22.  Requests  to  subpena  additional  witnesses  shall  be  received  and  con- 
sidered by  the  chairman  in  any  investigation  in  which  witnesses  have  been 
subpenaed.  Auy  such  request  received  from  a  witness  or  other  i)erson  entitled 
to  the  protections  afforded  by  subsection  19  or  20  of  this  rule  shall  be  con- 
sidered and  disposed  of  by  the  committee. 

"  '23.  Each  committee  conducting  investigations  shall  make  available  to 
interested  persons  copies  of  the  rules  applicable  therein.'  " 


[S.  Res.  301,  83(1  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 

AINIENDMENT  Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Flandeks  to  the  resolution  (S. 
Res.  301 )  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 
On  page  1,  line  5,  after  the  word  "condemned",  strike  the  period  and  insert 

the  following :  "for  the  following  reasons : 


6  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

"(1)  He  has  retained  and/or  accredited  staff  personnel  whose  reputations  are 
in  question  and  whose  backgrounds  would  tend  to  indicate  untrustworthiness 
(Surine,  Lavinia,  J.  B.  INlatthews). 

"(2)  He  has  permitted  his  staff  to  conduct  itself  in  a  presumptuous  manner. 
His  counsel  and  his  consultant  (Messrs.  Cohn  and  Schine)  have  been  insolent  to 
other  Senators,  discourteous  to  the  public,  and  discreditable  to  the  Senate.  His 
counsel  and  consultant  traveled  abroad  making  a  spectacle  of  themselves  and 
brought  discredit  upon  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  whose  employees  they 
were. 

"(3)  He  has  conducted  his  committee  in  such  a  slovenly  and  unprofessional 
way  that  cases  of  mistaken  identities  have  resulted  in  grievous  hardship  or  have 
made  his  committee,  and  thereby  the  Senate,  appear  ridiculous.  (Annie  Lee 
Moss,  Lawrence  W.  Parrish,  subpenaed  and  brought  to  Washington  instead  of 
Lareence  T.  Parish.) 

"(4)  He  has  proclaimed  publicly  his  intention  to  subpena  citizens  of  good 
reputation,  and  then  never  called  them.  (General  Telford  Taylor.  William  P. 
Bundy,  former  President  Truman,  reporters  Marder,  Joseph  Alsop,  Friendly, 
Bigrant,  Phillip  Potter. ) 

"(5)  He  has  repeatedly  used  verbal  subpenas  of  questionable  legality.  (Tried 
to  prevent  State  Department  granting  visa  to  William  P.  Bundy  on  ground  that 
he  was  under  'oral  subpena.') 

"(6)  He  has  attempted  to  intimidate  the  press  and  sin?;le  out  individual 
journalists  who  have  been  critical  of  him  or  whose  reports  he  has  regarded  with 
disfavor,  and  either  threatened  them  with  subpena  or  forced  them  to  testify 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  raise  the  possibility  of  a  breach  of  the  first  amendment 
of  the  Constitution.  (Murrey  Marder  of  the  Washington  Post,  the  Alsops,  James 
Wechsler.) 

"(7)  He  has  attempted  'economic  coercion'  against  the  press  and  radio,  par- 
ticularly the  case  of  Time  magazine,  the  Milwaukee  Journal,  and  the  Madison 
Capital  Times.  (On  June  16,  1952,  McCarthy  sent  letters  to  advertisers  in  Time 
magazine,  urging  them  to  withdraw  their  advertisements.) 

"(8)  He  has  permitted  the  staff  to  investigate  at  least  one  of  his  fellow 
Senators  (Jackson)  and  possibly  numerous  Senators.  Such  material  has  been 
reserved  with  the  obvious  intention  of  coercing  the  other  Senator  or  Senators  to 
submit  to  his  will,  or  for  the  purpose  of  inhibiting  them  from  expressing  them- 
selves critically.  (Cohn  said  he  would  'get'  Senator  Jackson). — Washington 
News,  June  14,  1954. 

"(9)  He  has  posed  as  savior  of  his  country  from  communism,  yet  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice  reported  that  McCarthy  never  turned  over  for  prosecution  a 
single  case  against  any  of  his  alleged  'Communists.'  (The  Justice  Department 
report  of  December  18,  1951.)  Since  that  date  not  a  single  person  has  been  tried 
for  Communists  activities  as  a  result  of  information  supplied  by  McCarthy. 

"(10)  He  has  attacked,  defamed,  and  besmirched  military  heroes  of  the  United 
States,  either  as  witnesses  before  his  committee  or  under  the  cloak  of  immunity 
of  the  Senate  floor.     (General  Zwicker,  General  Marshall.) 

"(11)  He  has  used  distortion  and  innuendo  to  attack  the  reputations  of  the 
following  citizens:  Former  President  Truman,  General  George  Marshall,  At- 
torney General  Brownell,  John  J.  McCloy,  Ambassador  Charles  E.  Bohlen,  Sena- 
tor Raymond  Baldwin,  Former  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  Anna  Rosenberg, 
Philip  Jessup,  Marquis  Childs,  Richard  L.  Strout  of  the  Christian  Science  Moni- 
tor, General  Telford  Taylor,  and  the  three  national  press  associations. 

"(12)  He  has  disclosed  restricted  security  information  in  possible  violation 
of  the  espionage  laws.  McCarthy  has  made  public  portions  of  an  Army  Intelli- 
gence stTidy.  Soviet  Siberia,  which  compelled  the  Army  to  declassify  and  release 
the  entire  document.) 

"  (1.3)  He  received  and  held  a  vahiable  classified  document  in  possible  violation 
of  the  Espionage  Act.  (Revealed  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings  tbat  he  had 
improperly  obtained  J.  Edgar  Hoover's  report  on  subversives  from  the  Army,  and 
failed  to  restore  the  docimient  to  properly  authorized  hands.)  He  permitted 
that  document  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  gossip  columnist  (Walter  Winchell). 

"(14)  He  has  publicly  incited  Government  employees  to  violate  their  security 
oaths  and  serve  as  his  personal  informants,  thus  tending  to  break  down  the 
orderly  chain  of  command  in  the  civil  service,  as  well  as  violate  the  security 
provisions  of  the  Government. 

"(15)  He  has  u-^pd  his  oliicial  position  to  fix  the  Comnmnist  label  upon  all 
individuals  and  newspapers  as  might  legitimately  disagree  with  him  or  refuse 
to   acknowledge   him   as   the   unique   leader   in    the   tight   against   subversion. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  7 

f Deliberate  slips  such  as  callinj?  Adlai  Stevenson  'Alger';  sayinfj  that  the 
American  Civil  Liberties  Union  hart  been  'listed'  as  doing  the  work  of  the 
Communist  Party  ;  calling  the  Milwaukee  Journal  and  Washington  Post  local 
'editions  of  tlie  Daily  Worker.') 

"(16)  He  has  attempted  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the  executive  depart- 
ment by  having  his  staff  negotiate  agreements  with  a  group  of  Greek  ship- 
owners in  London;  and  has  infringed  upon  functions  of  the  State  Department, 
claiming  that  he  was  acting  in  the  'national  interest.' 

"(17)  He  has  continued  to  show  his  contempt  for  the  Senate  by  failing  to 
explain  in  any  manner  the  six  charges  contained  in  the  Hennings-Hayden- 
Hendrickson  report,  which  was  filed  in  January  1953.  This  involves  his  bank 
transactions,  possible  in':ome-tax  evasions,  and  the  Lustron  deal.  The  taint 
pei-sists  until  he  satisfactorily  explains  these  matters,  which  he  refused  to  do, 
although  invited  six  times  to  appear,  during  the  Eighty-second  Congress. 

"(IS)  He  has  made  false  claims  about  alleged  wounds  which  in  fact  he  did 
not  suffer.  (Claims  he  was  a  tailgunner  when,  in  fact,  he  was  a  Marine  Air 
Force  Ground  Intelligence  oflicer  *  *  *  claims  he  entered  as  buck  private^ 
when  he  entered  as  a  commissioned  oflicer.) 

"(19)  His  rude  and  ruthless  disregard  of  the  rights  of  other  Senators  has 
gone  to  the  point  where  the  entire  minority  membership  of  the  Permanent 
Investiuating  Subcommittee  resigned  from  the  committee  in  protest  against 
his  high-handedness.     (July  10,  1953.) 

"(20)  He  has  intruded  upon  the  prerogative  of  the  executive  branch,  violating 
the  constitutional  principles  of  separation  of  powers.  (Within  a  single  week 
(February  14-20.  1953),  McCarthy's  activities  against  Voice  of  America  forced 
the  State  Department  three  times  to  reverse  administrative  decisions  on  matters 
normally  considered  internal  operating  procedures:  (1)  The  Department  had 
authorized  the  use  of  certain  writings  by  pro-Communist  authors  as  part  of 
their  program  to  expose  Communist  lies  and  false  promises.  McC'arthy  com- 
pelled the  State  Department  to  discontinue  this  practice;  (2)  the  Department 
authorized  its  employees  to  refuse  to  talk  with  McCarthy's  staff  in  the  absence 
of  McCarthy  himself.  It  was  compelled  to  cancel  this  directive;  and  (3) 
John  Matson,  a  departnaental  security  agent  who  had  'cooperated'  with 
McCarthy,  was  transferred  so  as  to  be  put  out  of  reach  of  the  Department's 
confidential  liles.  McCarthy  compelled  the  Department  to  return  Matson  to 
his  original  position.) 

"(21)  He  has  infringed  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  other  Senate  committees, 
invading  the  area  of  the  Internal  Security  Subcommittee  and  other  committees 
of  the  Congress. 

"(22)  He  has  failed  to  perform  the  solid  and  useful  duties  of  the  Government 
Operations  Committee,  abandoning  the  legitimate  and  vital  functions  of  this 
committee. 

"(23)  He  has  held  executive  sessions  in  an  apparent  attempt  to  prevent  the 
press  from  getting  an  accurate  account  of  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  and  then 
released  his  own  versions  of  that  testimony,  often  at  variance  with  the  subse- 
quently revealed  transcripts,  and  under  circumstances  in  which  the  witness  had 
little  opportunity  to  correct  or  object  to  his  version. 

"(24)  He  has  questioned  adverse  witnesses  in  public  session  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  defame  loyal  and  valuable  public  servants,  whose  own  testimony  he  failed 
to  get  beforehand,  and  whom  he  never -provided  a  comparable  opportunity  for 
answering  the  charges. 

"(25)  He  has  barred  the  press  and  general  public  from  executive  sessions  and 
then  permitted  unauthorized  persons  whom  his  whim  favored  to  attend,  in 
one  case,  a  class  of  schoolgirls,  thus  holding  the  very  principle  of  executive 
sessions  up  to  ridicule. 

"(26)  His  conduct  has  caused  and  permitted  his  subcommittee  to  be  incom- 
plete or  incapacitated  in  its  normal  work  for  approximately  40  per  centum  of 
the  time  that  he  has  been  its  chairman.  (During  his  nineteen  months  as  chair- 
man of  the  subcommittee,  his  refusal  to  recognize  their  rights — later  acknowl- 
edged by  him— caused  the  minority  members  to  leave  the  subcommittee  on 
July  10,  1953,  and  they  did  not  return  until  January  25,  1954.  His  personally 
motivated  quarrel  with  the  United  States  Anny  necessitated  the  interruption  of 
the  subcommittee's  work  and  its  exclusive  preoccupation  with  the  Army-Mc- 
Carthy hearings  from  April  22, 1954,  to  June  17,  1954. ) 

"(27)  He  has  publicly  threatened  publications  with  the  withdrawal  of  their 
second-class  mailing  privilege  because  he  disagreed  with  their  editorial  policy. 
(Washington  Post,  Wall  Street  Journal,  Time  magazine.)     Letter  to  Postmaster 


8  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

General  Summerfield  made  public  August  22,  1953.  See  Washington  Post,  Au- 
gust 23,  1953. 

"(28)  He  has  exploited  his  committee  chairmanship  to  disseminate  fantastic 
and  unverified  claims  for  the  obvious  purpose  of  publicity.  (McCarthy's  hint 
that  he  was  in  secret  communication  with  Lavrenti  P.  Beria  and  would  produce 
him  as  a  witness  at  a  time  when  Beria  was  on  the  verge  of  execution  in  Moscow.) 
Washington  News,  September  21,  1953  (announcement  of  plan  to  subpena  Beria). 

"(29)  He  has  denied  Members  of  Congress  access  to  the  tiles  of  the  committee, 
to  which  eveiy  Member  of  Congress  is  entitled  under  the  Reorganization  Act 
(title  II,  sec.  202,  par.  (d) ). 

"(30)  He  has  ridiculed  his  colleagues  in  the  Senate,  defaming  them  publicly 
in  vulgar  and  base  language  (regarding  Senator  Hendrickson — 'A  living  miracle 
without  brains  or  guts ;'.  On  Flanders — 'Senile — I  think  they  should  get  a  man 
with  a  net  and  take  him  to  a  good  quiet  place.'). 

"(31)  He  has  announced  investigations  prematurely,  subsequently  dropping 
these  investigations  so  that  the  question  whether  there  was  ever  any  serious 
intent  to  pursue  them  may  be  justifiably  raised,  along  with  the  inevitable  con- 
clusion that  publicity  was  the  only  purpose.  (Central  Intelligence  Agency, 
Beria,  and  so  forth. ) 

"(32)  Checking  through  hearings,  one  will  note  that  favorable  material  sub- 
mitted by  witnesses  will  usually  have  the  notation  'May  be  found  in  the  flies  of 
the  subcommittee',  whereas  unfavorable  material  is  printed  in  the  record. 

"(33)  He  has  permitted  changing  of  committee  reports  and  records  in  such  a 
way  as  to  substantially  change  or  delete  vital  meanings.  ( Senator  Margaret 
Chase  Smith  felt  compelled  to  object  to  the  filing  of  his  1953  subcommittee  reports 
without  their  first  being  sent  through  the  full  committee.)" 

The  Chairman.  At  this  point  we  will  read  into  the  record  the  notice 
of  this  hearing : 

"August  24, 1954. 
"Notice  or  Hearings 

"Notice  is  hereby  oriven  to  Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  and  all  inter- 
ested persons,  that  the  select  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  appointed  pursuant  to  an  order  of  the  Senate  agi'eed  to  on 
August  2,  1954  (legislative  day,  July  2,  1954),  entered  on  Senate 
Resolution  301,  a  copy  of  which  together  with  the  resolution  and 
amendments  thereto  is  hereto  attached,  will  meet  in  executive  session 
on  Monday,  August  30,  1954,  at  2  p.  m.,  eastern  daylight-saving  time, 
and  that  the  said  committee  will  sit  for  the  purposes  of  its  appointment 
on  Tuesday,  August  31, 1954,  at  10  a.  m.,  eastern  daylight-saving  time, 
in  the  Senate  caucus  room,  in  the  Senate  Office  Building,  at  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  and  commence  at  said  time  and  place  its  hearings  to 
receive  evidence,  take  testimony,  and  act  as  provided  in  said  order, 
relating  to  the  following  matters,  among  others,  committed  to  its 
jurisdiction : 

"I.  Incidents  of  contempt  of  the  Senate  or  a  senatorial  committee, 
referred  to  in  the  following : 

"A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution  (S. 
Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(3)  Although  repeatedly  invited  to  testify  by  a  committee  of  this  Senate 
headed  by  the  Senator  from  Iowa,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  denounced 
the  committee  and  contemptuously  refused  to  comply  with  its  request. 

"B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

"(a)  Declined  to  comply  with  a  request  made  by  letter  on  November  21,  1952, 
by  the  chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration,  that  he  appear  before  the  subcommittee 
to  supply  information  concerning  certain  specific  matters  involving  his  activities 
as  a  Member  of  the  Senate. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  9 

"C.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S. 
Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(17)  He  has  continued  to  show  his  contempt  for  the  Senate  by  failing  to 
explain  in  any  manner  the  six  charges  contained  in  the  Hennings-Hayden-Hen- 
drickson  report,  whicli  was  filed  in  January  1953.  This  involves  his  bank  trans- 
actions, possible  income-tax  evasions,  and  the  Lustron  deal.  The  taint  persists 
until  he  satisfactorily  explains  these  matters,  which  he  refused  to  do,  although 
invited  six  times  to  appear  during  the  82d  Congress. 

"Copies  of  said  amendments,  and  all  other  amendments  hereinafter 
referred  to,  are  attached  to  this  notice. 

"II.  Incidents  of  encouragement  of  United  States  employees  to  vio- 
late the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office  or  Executive  orders,  referred  to  in 
the  following: 

"A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution  (S. 
Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(5)  The  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  openly,  in  a  public  manner  before 
nationwide  television,  invited  and  urged  employees  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  violate  the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office. 

"B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr,  Morse  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301 )  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

"(e)  Openly  invited  and  incited  employees  of  the  Government  to  violate  the 
law  and  their  oaths  of  office  by  urging  them  to  make  available  information, 
including  classified  information,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  employees  could 
be  of  assistance  to  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  in  conducting  his  investi- 
gations, even  though  the  supplying  of  such  information  by  the  employees  would 
be  illegal  and  in  violation  of  Presidential  order  and  contrary  to  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  Chief  Executive  under  the  separation-of-powers  doctrine. 

"C.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301 )  to  censure  the  Senator  from  AVisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

"(14)  He  has  publicly  incited  Government  employees  to  violate  their  security 
oaths  and  serve  as  his  personal  informants,  thus  tending  to  break  down  the 
orderly  chain  of  command  in  the  civil  service,  as  well  as  violating  the  security 
provisions  of  the  Government. 

"III.  Incidents  involving  receipt  or  use  of  confidential  or  classified 
document  or  other  confidential  information,  from  executive  files,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  following : 

"A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301 )  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

"(d)  Received  and  made  use  of  confidential  information  unlawfully  obtained 
from  a  document  in  executive  files  upon  which  document  the  Federal  Bureau 
of  Investigation  had  placed  its  highest  classification ;  and  offered  siich  informa- 
tion to  a  lawfully  constituted  Senate  subcommittee  in  the  form  of  a  spurious 
document  which  he  falsely  asserted  to  the  subcommittee  to  be  'a  letter  from  the 
FBI.' 

"B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301 )  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

"(13)  He  received  and  held  a  valuable  classified  document  in  possible  viola- 
tion of  the  Espionage  Act.  (Revealed  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings  that  he 
Lad  improperly  obtained  J.  Edgar  Hoover's  report  on  subversives  from  the  Army 
and  failed  to  restore  the  document  to  properly  authorized  hands.)  He  per- 
mitted the  document  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  gossip  columnist  (Walter 
Winchell). 


10  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

"IV.  Incidents  involving  abuses  of  colleagues  in  tlie  Senate,  referred 
to  in  the  following : 

"A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

"(30)  He  has  ridiculed  his  colleagues  in  the  Senate,  defaming  them  publicly 
in  vulgar  and  base  language  (regarding  Senator  Hendrickson — 'a  living  miracle 
without  brains  or  guts' ;  on  Flanders — 'Senile — I  think  they  should  get  a  man 
with  a  net  and  take  him  to  a  good  quiet  place.'). 

"B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  AVisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz : 

"(b)  Unfairly  accused  his  fellow  Senators  Gillette,  Monroney,  Hendrickson, 
Hayden.  and  Hennings  of  improper  conduct  in  carrying  out  tlieir  duties  as 
Senators. 

"V.  Incident  relating  to  Ralph  Zwicker,  a  general  officer  of  the 
Army  of  the  United  States,  referred  to  in  the  following: 

"A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution  (S, 
Res.  301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

"(4)  Without  justification,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  impugned  the 
loyalty,  patriotism,  and  character  of  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker. 

"B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

"(c)  As  chairman  of  a  committee  resorted  to  abusive  conduct  in  his  interro- 
gation of  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker,  including  a  charge  that  General  Zwicker  was 
unfit  to  wear  the  uniform,  during  the  appearance  of  General  Zwicker  as  a 
witness  before  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations  of  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Government  Operations  on  February  18,  1954. 

"C.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res. 
301)  to  censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz: 

"  (10)  He  has  attacked,  defamed,  and  besmirched  military  heroes  of  the  United 
States,  either  as  witnesses  before  his  committee  or  under  the  cloak  of  immunity 
of  the  Senate  floor  (General  Zwicker,  General  Marshall)." 

"The  select  committee  reserves  the  right  to  take  thereafter  such  other 
testimony  as  it  may  deem  advisable  relating  "to  any  other  matters  re- 
ferred to  in  said  order  of  the  Senate,  resolution,  and  pi'oposed  amend- 
ments, or  as  may  be  developed  at  the  hearings,  and  will  make  report 
to  the  Senate. 

"All  testimony  and  evidence  received  in  the  hearings  shall  be  such  as 
is  found  by  the  select  committee  to  be  competent,  relevant,  and  material 
to  the  subject  matters  so  under  inquiry,  with  the  right  of  examination 
and  cross-examination,  in  general  conformity  to  judicial  proceedings 
and  in  accordance  with  said  order  of  the  Senate. 

"The  select  committee  will  admit,  subject  to  said  order,  as  competent 
testimony  for  the  record,  so  far  as  material  and  relevant,  the  official 
proceedings  and  pertinent  actions  of  the  Senate  and  of  any  of  its  com- 
mittees or  subcommittees,  taking  judicial  notice  thereof,  and  using 
official  reprints  when  convenient.  Following  Senate  tradition,  \vit- 
nesses  may  be  examined  by  anj'^  member  of  the  connnittee,  and  they 
may  be  examined  or  cross-examined  for  the  connnittee  by  its  counsel. 
AVitnesscs  ma}'  be  examined  or  cross-examined  either  by  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy or  his  counsel,  but  not  by  both,  as  to  tlie  same  witness. 

"The  said  Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCarthy  is  hereby  formally  requested 
by  the  said  select  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  to 
appear  at  said  hearing  and  hearings  and  adjournments  and  continu- 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  11 

ances  thereof,  with  legal  counsel,  if  desired  by  him,  to  be  examined, 
with  the  right  to  present  evidence  and  testimony  in  accordance  here- 
with and  in  accordance  with  the  said  order  of  the  Senate. 

"Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges 

"Pursuant  to  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

"Arthur  V.  Watkins,  GhmrmanP 

At  this  point  I  note  the  presence  of  all  members  of  the  committee 
who  are,  of  course,  well  known  to  the  people  who  are  assembled  here, 
and  the  presence  of  the  chief  counsel  and  the  assistant  chief  counsel 
to  the  committee. 

I  introduce  JNIr.  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  chief  counsel,  former  Member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  a  leading  and  distinguished  mem- 
ber of  the  bar  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Chadwick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  And  assistant  counsel,  Guy  G.  de  Furia,  also  of 
Pemisylvania.  Swai'thmore,  Pa.,  a  distinguished  member  of  the  bar 
wlio  has  served  as  district  attorney  in  his  community  and  has  been  vei'y 
active  in  the  practice  of  law. 

We  have  other  members  of  the  staff  whom  it  will  not  be  necessary  at 
this  time  to  introduce. 

Now,  at  the  outset  of  this  hearing,  the  committee  desires  to  state  in 
general  terms  what  is  involved  in  Senate  Resolution  301  and  the  Senate 
order  on  it,  which  authorized  the  appointment  of  the  select  committee 
to  consider  in  behalf  of  the  Senate  the  so-called  Flanders  resolution 
of  censure,  together  with  all  amendments  proposed  to  the  resolution. 

The  committee,  in  the  words  of  the  Senate  order,  was — 

authorized  to  hold  hearings,  to  sit  and  act  at  such  times  and  places  during  the 
sessions,  recesses,  and  adjoiirned  periods  of  the  Senate,  to  require  by  subpena, 
or  otherwise,  the  attendance  of  such  witnesses  and  the  production  of  such  cor- 
respondence, books,  papers,  and  documents,  and  to  take  such  testimony  as  it 
deems  advisable,  and  that  the  committee  be  instructed  to  act  and  make  a  report 
to  this  body  prior  to  the  adjournment  sine  die  of  the  Senate  in  the  2d  session  of 
the  S3d  Congress. 

That  is  a  broad  grant  of  power,  carrying  with  it  a  heavy  respon- 
sibility— a  responsibility  which  the  committee  takes  seriously.  In 
beginning  its  duties,  the  committee  found  a  few  precedents  to  serve 
as  a  guide.  It  is  true  that  there  had  been  other  censure  resolutions 
before  the  Senate  in  the  past,  but  the  acts  complained  of  were,  for 
the  most  part,  single  occurrences  which  happened  in  the  presence  of 
the  Senate  or  one  of  its  committees.  Uiider  such  circumstances, 
prolonged  investigations  and  hearings  were  not  necessary. 

It  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  some  forty-odd  alleged  instances 
of  misconduct  on  the  part  of  Senator  McCarthy  referred  to  this 
committee  are  involved  and  complex,  both  with  respect  to  matters 
of  fact  and  law.  AVith  reference  to  the  time  element,  the  incidents 
are  alleged  to  have  happened  within  a  period  covering  several  years. 
In  addition,  3  Senate  committees  already  have  held  hearings  on  1  or 
more  phases  of  the  alleged  incidents  of  misconduct.  Obviously,  with 
all  this  in  mind,  the  committee  had  good  reason  for  concluding  it 
faced  an  unprecedented  situation  which  would  require  adoption  of 
procedures,  all  within  the  authority  granted  it  in  the  Senate  order, 


12  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

that  would  enable  it  to  perform  the  duties  assigned  within  the  limited 
time  given  by  the  Senate. 

The  committee  interprets  its  duties,  functions,  and  responsibilities 
under  the  Senate  order  to  be  as  follows : 

1.  To  analyze  the  charges  set  forth  in  the  amendments  and  to 
determine : 

(a)   If  there  were  duplications  which  could  be  eliminated. 

(h)  If  any  of  the  charges  were  of  such  a  nature  that  even  if  the 
allegations  were  established  as  factually  true,  yet  there  would  be 
strong  reasons  for  believing  that  they  did  not  constitute  a  ground 
for  censure. 

2.  To  thoroughly  investigate  all  charges  not  eliminated  under  No.  1 
in  order  to  secure  relevant  and  material  facts  concerning  them  and 
the  names  of  witnesses  or  records  which  can  establish  the  facts  at  the 
hearings  to  be  held. 

In  this  connection  the  committee  believes  it  should  function  as  an 
impartial  investigating  agency  to  develop  by  direct  contacts  in  the 
field  and  by  direct  examination  of  Senate  records  all  relevant  and 
material  facts  possible  to  secure. 

When  Senate  Resolution  301  and  amendments  offered  were  referred 
to  the  committee,  the  committee  interprets  this  action  to  mean  that 
from  that  time  on  the  resolution  and  charges  became  the  sole  respon- 
sibility of  the  Senate.  To  state  it  another  way,  the  Senator,  or  Sena- 
tors, who  offered  resolution  301,  and  proposed  amendments  thereto, 
have  no  legal  responsibility  from  that  point  on  for  the  conduct  of 
the  investigations  and  hearings  authorized  by  the  order  of  the  Senate. 
The  hearings  are  not  to  be  adversary  in  character.  Under  this  inter- 
pretation, it  became  the  committee's  duty  then  to  get  all  the  facts 
and  material  relevant  to  the  charges  irrespective  of  whetlier  the  facts 
sustained  the  charges  or  showed  them  to  be  without  foundation. 

The  foregoing  statement  seems  to  be  necessary  in  view  of  a  wide- 
spread misunderstanding  that  the  Senator  who  introduced  the  reso- 
lution of  censure  into  the  Senate  and  the  Senators  who  offered  amend- 
ments thereto,  setting  up  specific  charges  against  the  Senator  from 
Wisconsin,  are  the  complaining  witnesses,  or  the  parties  plaintiff,  in 
this  proceeding.  That  is  not  true,  as  has  been  explained.  However, 
because  of  the  fact  that  they  had  made  some  study  of  the  situation, 
the  committee  did  give  them  an  opportunity  to  submit  informational 
documentation  of  the  charges  they  had  offered.  Also  they  were  asked 
to  submit  the  names  of  any  witnesses  who  might  have  firsthand  knowl- 
edge of  the  matters  charged  and  who  could  give  relevant  and  material 
testimony  in  the  hearings. 

Since  matters  of  law  also  will  be  involved  in  reaching  evaluation 
of  the  facts  developed,  pertinent  rules  of  the  Senate  and  sections  of 
law,  together  with  precedents'  and  decisions  by  competent  tribunals, 
should  be  briefed  and  made  a  part  of  the  hearing  record,  the  commit- 
tee believes. 

3.  To  hold  hearings  where  the  committee  can  present  witnesses  and 
documentary  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  placing  on  record,  for  later 
use  by  the  Senate,  the  evidence  and  other  information  gathered  during 
the  preliminary  investigation  period,  and  for  the  development  or 
additional  evidence  and  information  as  the  hearings  proceed. 

The  resolution  of  censure  presents  to  the  Senate  an  issue  with  re- 
spect to  the  conduct  and  possible  punishment  of  one  of  its  Members. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  13 

The  debate  in  tlie  Senate  preceding  tlie  vote  to  refer  the  matter  to  a 
select  committee  made  it  abundantly  clear  that  the  proceedings  neces- 
sary to  a  proper  disposal  of  the  resolution  and  the  amendments  pro- 
loosed,  both  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  select  committee,  would  be  judicial 
or  quasijudicial  in  nature,  and  for  that  reason  should  be  conducted  in 
<a  judicial  manner  and  atmosphere,  so  far  as  compatible  with  the  in- 
vestigative finictions  of  the  committee  in  its'  preliminary  and  con- 
tinuing search  for  evidence  and  information  bearing  on  all  phases  of 
the  issues  presented. 

Inherent  in  the  situation  created  by  the  resolution  of  censure  and 
the  charges  made,  is  the  right  of  the  Senator  against  whom  the  charges 
were  made  to  be  present  at  the  hearings  held  by  the  select  committee. 
He  should  also  be  permitted  to  be  represented  by  counsel  and  should 
have  the  right  of  cross-examination.  This  is  somewhat  contrary  to 
the  practice  by  Senate  committees  in  the  past,  in  hearings  of  this 
nature,  but  the  present  committee  believes  that  the  accused  Senator 
should  have  these  rights.  He  or  his  counsel,  but  not  both,  shall  be 
permitted  to  make  objections  to  the  introduction  of  testimony,  but  the 
argmnent  on  the  objections  may  be  had  or  withheld  at  the  discretion 
of  the  chairman.  The  Senator  under  charges  should  be  permitted  to 
present  witnesses  and  documentary  evidence  in  his  behalf,  but,  of 
course,  this  should  be  done  in  compliance  with  the  policy  laid  down 
by  the  committee  in  its  notice  of  hearing,  which  is  a  part  of  this  record. 

In  general,  the  committee  wishes  it  understood  that  the  regulations 
adopted  are  for  the  purpose  of  insuring  a  judicial  hearing  and  a  judi- 
<;ial  atmosphere  as  befits  the  importance  of  the  issues  raised.  For  that 
reason,  and  in  accordance  with  the  order  the  committee  believes  to  be 
the  sentiment  of  the  Senate,  all  activities  which  are  not  permitted  in 
the  Senate  itself  will  not  be  permitted  in  this  hearing. 

4.  When  the  hearings  have  closed,  to  prepare  a  report  and  submit 
it  to  the  Senate.  Under  the  order  creating  this  committee,  this  must 
be  done  before  the  present  Senate  adjourns  sine  die. 

By  way  of  comment,  let  me  say  that  the  inquiry  we  are  engaged  in 
is  of  a  special  character  which  differentiates  it  from  the  usual  legisla- 
tive inquiry.  It  involves  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Senate  itself  in 
the  exercise  of  a  high  constitutional  function.  It  is  by  nature  a  judi- 
cial or  semijudicial  function,  and  we  shall  attempt  to  conduct  it  as 
such.  The  procedures  outlined  are  not  necessarily  appropriate  to 
■congressional  investigations  and  should  not,  therefore,  be  construed 
as  in  any  sense  intended  as  a  model  appropriate  to  such  inquiries. 
We  hope  what  we  are  doing  will  be  found  to  conform  to  sound  sena- 
torial principles  and  traditions  in  the  special  field  in  which  the  com- 
mittee is  operating. 

It  has  been  said  before,  but  it  will  do  no  harm  to  repeat,  that  the 
members  of  this  committee  did  not  seek  this  appointment.  The  quali- 
fications laid  down  by  the  Senate  order  creating  the  committee  said 
the  committee  should  be  made  up  of  3  Democrat  Senators  and  3  Re- 

?ublican  Senators.  This  was  the  only  condition  named  in  the  order, 
[owever,  in  a  larger  sense,  the  proper  authorities  of  the  Senate  were 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  attempting  to  choose  members  of 
the  Senate  for  this  committee  who  coulcl  and  would  conduct  a  fair 
and  impartial  investigation  and  hearing.  Members  of  the  committee 
deemed  their  selection  by  the  Senate  authorities  as  a  trust.  We  realize 
we  are  human.     We  know,  and  the  American  people  know,  that  there 


14  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

has  been  a  controversy  raging  over  the  country  through  a  number 
of  years  in  connection  with  the  activities  of  the  Senator  against  M^ioin 
the  resohition  is  directed. 

Members  of  this  committee  liave  been  conscious  of  tliat  controversy ; 
they  have  seen,  heard,  and  read  of  the  activities,  charges,  and  counter- 
charges, and,  being  human,  they  may  have  at  times  expressed  their 
impressions  with  respect  to  events  that  were  happening  while  they 
were  happening.  However,  each  of  the  Senators  who  make  up  this 
special  select  committee  are  mature  men  and  with  a  wide  background 
of  experience  which  should  enable  them  to  disregard  any  impressions 
or  preconceived  notions  they  may  have  had  in  the  past  respecting  the 
controversies  which  have  been  going  on  in  public  for  many  years. 

We  approach  this  matter  as  a  duty  imposed  upon  us  and  which  we 
feel  that  we  should  do  our  very  best  to  discharge  in  a  proper  manner. 
We  i-ealize  the  United  States  Senate,  in  a  sense,  is  on  trial,  and  we 
hope  our  conduct  will  be  such  as  to  maintain  the  American  sense  of 
fair  play  and  the  high  traditions  and  dignity  of  the  United  States 
Senate  under  the  authority  given  it  by  the  Constitution. 
Off  the  record. 
(Discussion  off  the  record.) 

The  Chaiiusian.  My  attention  has  been  called  to  an  oversight, 
which,  of  course,  I  hardly  need  to  say,  that  Senator  ISIcCarthy  and 
his  counsel,  Mr.  Williams,  are  also  present.  I  apologize  for  the  over- 
sight. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  that  this  may  be  an  appro- 
■|)riate  time  for  me  to  introduce  my  associate  counsel  who  have  not 
heretofore  been  introduced  to  the  committee,  Mr.  Brent  Bozell  of  the 
California  bar,  and  Miss  Agnes  Neill  of  my  office. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  glad  to  have  them  present  with  us. 
Mr.  Williams.  They  sit  immediately  behind  us. 
The  Chairman.  This  probably  is  an  appropriate  time  to  permit 
Senator  McCarthy  to  make  an  opening  statement.  However,  before 
he  makes  it,  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  morning  we 
were  given  two  copies  of  this  statement  and  we  have  attempted  in  the 
rather  last-minute  rusli  before  coming  in  here,  to  go  over  it. 

The  condition  was  made  that  it  should  be  relevant  and  material. 
It  will  not  be,  of  course,  a  sworn  statement.     It  is  not  testimony. 
It  is  customary  ordinarily  in  court  to  permit  a  statement  of  this  kind. 
I  want  to  say  that  we  recognize  that  most  of  it  is  not  material  and 
relevant  to  the  issues  in  this  hearing  as  we  understand  them.    How- 
ever, we  are  not  going  to  prevent  Senator  McCarthy  from  making 
that  statement,  and  we  will  now  permit  him  to  proceed. 
Senator  McCarthy.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 
The  Chairman.  xA.nd  we  want  it  understood  that  this  is  not  a  prece- 
dent to  the  reception  of  any  matter  in  the  way  of  testimony  or  evidence 
that  is  irrelevant,  incompetent,  and  immaterial. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOSEPH  R.  McCAETHY,  UNITED  STATES 
SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN 

Senator  McCarthy.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  conunittee,  I  have  requested  several 
minutes  at  the  beginning  of  these  proceedings  to  make  a  statement. 
I  am  grateful  for  permission  to  do  so.     This  is  a  serious  matter  to 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  15 

me  and,  I  think,  to  the  country.  It  weighs  heavily  on  me  and  I  would 
like  my  own  feelings  known,  in  broad  outline  at  least,  before  the  com- 
mittee begins  to  consider  the  evidence. 

Several  years  ago,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  became  convinced  that  this 
countrj^  and  its  institutions  were  in  imminent  peril  of  destruction  by 
international  communism.  I  learned  from  dedicated  Americans, 
theretofore  closer  to  the  situation  than  I,  that  the  threat  was  not  just 
from  the  outside,  but  that  the  agents  of  the  Soviet  Union  were  firmly 
entrenched  in  our  midst;  and  in  particular  that  their  success  in  in- 
filtrating our  Government  had  given  the  Soviet  Union  access  to  our 
most  important  secrets  as  well  as  a  powerful  and  deadly  voice  in  deter- 
mining our  foreign  policies.  I  became  convinced  that  subversives  in 
the  American  Government  had  played  a  large  role  in  the  long  and 
tragic  train  of  "defeats  that  this  country  and  the  free  world  have 
sultered  at  the  liands  of  the  Soviet  Union  since  our  entrance  into  the 
Second  World  War. 

I  was  late,  Mr.  Chairman — we  all  were  late,  although  I  daresay  some 
of  us  were  earlier  than  others — in  appreciating  the  immediacy  and 
enormity  of  the  danger.    For  it  had  been  with  us  many,  many  years. 

Once  the  weaknesses  of  our  secm'ity  system  had  been  brought  home 
to  me,  I  conceived  it  my  duty  to  expend  every  effort  of  mind  and  body 
to  fight  subversion,  to  help  clean  traitors  and  potential  traitors  out  of 
the  Government.  1  conceived  this  to  be  my  first  duty  to  my  constitu- 
ents and  to  my  country.     I  still  do,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  have  carried  on  my  part  in  the  fight  as  best  I  know  how. 

Let  me  say  that  I  believe  much  progress  has  been  made  in  the  fight 
against  subversion.  Yet  all  the  while,  success  has  been  in  jeopardy; 
it  is  still  in  jeopardy. 

As  I  see  it,  the  fight  has  been  obstructed — often  successfully — by 
three  groups :  No.  1,  by  those  against  whom  it  is  directed,  the  Commu- 
nists and  their  sympathizers ;  No.  2,  by  those  who  do  not  sympathize 
with  communism  but  who  deny  that  it  presents  a  seiious  threat ;  and 
No.  3,  by  those  avIio  profess  to  appreciate  the  strengtl\  of  the  Commu- 
nist fifth  column  but  who  balk  at  taking  vigorous  measures  to  stamp 
it  out. 

These  three  groups,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  differently  motivated,  have 
rallied  around  a  common  standard.  They  have  shaken  hands  on  the 
proposition  that  vigorous  anticommunism  somehow  represents  a 
greater  danger  to  America  than  communism  itself. 

If,  after  all  is  said  and  done,  tliis  unholy  alliance  should  have  its 
way,  then  I  propose  the  premise  that  holds  it  together — that  vigorous 
anticommunism  is  more  dangerous  than  communism — as  a  fitting 
epitaph  on  the  grave  of  American  civilization. 

May  I  repeat  that,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  say  if,  after  all  is  said  and 
done,  if  this  unholy  alliance  should  have  its  way,  then  I  propose  that 
the  premise  that  holds  it  together — namely,  that  vigorous  anticommu- 
nism is  more  dangerous  than  communism — will  be  a  fitting  epitaph 
on  the  grave  of  American  civilization. 

It  has  been  said  that  I  am  the  cause  of  disunity  in  the  country  and 
in  my  party.  There  is  disunity,  and  perhaps  my  activities  have  been 
a  part  of  its  cause.  But  I  had  always  thought  that  it  takes  two  sides 
who  disagree  to  bring  about  disunity;  andthat  either  side,  by  ceas- 
ing to  disagree  with  the  other,  can,  of  course,  end  the  disunity. 


16  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Where  there  is  disunity  on  matters  of  principle,  then  there  ought 
to  be  disunity.  Otherwise  there  is  hypocrisy  and  betrayal  of  prin- 
ciple. I  do  not  propose  to  be  a  hypocrite,  and  I  will  not  betray  prin- 
ciple.   Nor  do  I  urge  this  course  on  men  who  oppose  me. 

Furthermore,  for  my  part,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  never  attempt  to 
bring  about  unity  by  trying,  on  specious  grounds,  to  silence  my  oppo- 
nents and  destroy  them,  and  thus  cut  off  the  debate.  I  believe  that 
debate  should  continue  on  the  merits  of  the  questions  that  divide  us, 
these  questions  being:  Whether  there  is  real  danger  from  Communist 
subversion,  and,  if  so,  how  to  cope  with  it. 

As  I  say,  I  believe  that  the  fight  of  the  American  people  against 
Communist  infiltration,  while  it  is  far  from  finished,  has  achieved 
much  success.  I  believe  that  the  record  shows  that  I  have  played 
some  small  part  in  that  achievement.  I  cannot  help  but  be  proud 
of  this. 

But  now  it  is  urged  that  I  be  censured. 

I  w^ould  be  untrutliful  if  I  agreed  that  my  accusers  were  not  affected 
by  ulterior,  political  considerations.  I  believe  that  my  accusers  either 
entertain  such  motives  themselves,  or  are  unwitting  victims  of  power- 
ful pressure  groups  in  the  country  who  are  best  characterized  as  oppo- 
nents of  a  vigorous  fight  against  communism. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  this  committee  has  its  duty.    I  recognize  that  duty. 

Four  weeks  ago  I  hoped  that  the  Senate  would  consider  and  vote 
on  the  censure  motion.  The  Senate  decided  instead  to  refer  the 
charges  to  this  committee.  While  I  preferred  a  vote  then  and  there, 
perhaps  this  procedure  is  best  after  all.  I  do  hope,  however,  thai: 
each  of  the  charges  made  against  me  on  the  Senate  floor  will  be  either 
considered  by  the  committee,  or  declared  by  it  unworthy  of  con- 
sideration. 

May  I  repeat  that,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  hope  that  each  of  the  charges 
made  against  me  on  the  Senate  floor  will  be  either  considered  by  the 
committee,  or  declared  by  it  unworthy  of  consideration. 

A  motion  of  censure,  whatever  motives  prompt  the  making  of  it, 
is  under  the  Constitution  a  legal  matter.  Consequently,  I  have 
retained  counsel,  Mr.  Edward  Bennett  Williams  and  Mr.  Brent  Bozell, 
and  I  now  put  the  case  in  their  hands. 

But  I  am  here  and  I  shall  remain  at  the  disposal  of  the  committee 
to  give  it  what  assistance  I  can.  I  am  hopeful  that  these  matters 
will  be  disposed  of  as  quickly  as  is  consistent  with  a  careful  weighing 
of  them.  I  have  been  kept  from  my  job,  Mr.  Chairman,  since  last 
March,  and  I  know  I  must  get  back  to  that  job  as  soon  as  I  possibly 
can. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  matters 
which  the  committee  deemed  of  first  importance  in  connection  with 
these  hearings.  No.  1,  "Incidents  of  contempt  of  the  Senate  or  a 
senatorial  committee." 

I  will  ask  our  chief  counsel,  Mr.  Chadwick,  to  read  the  specifications 
under  that  first  category. 

Mr.  CiiADwacK.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  matters  of  inquii-y  under  the 

first  item  under  schedule  I,  are  "Incidents  of  contempt  of  the  Senate 

or  a  senatorial  committee,"  and  reference  is  made  therein  to  the 

amendment  by  Senator  Fulbright,  subparagraph  (3),  and  quoting: 

Although  repeatedly  invited  to  testify  by  a  committee  of  this  Senate  headed 
by  the  Senator  from  Iowa,  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  denounced  the 
committee  and  contemptuously  refused  to  comply  with  its  request. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  17 

B,  the  amendment  of  Senator  Morse,  subparagraph  (a)  — 

declined  to  comply  with  a  request  made  by  letter  on  November  21,  1952,  by  the 
chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  and  Administration,  that  he  appear  before  the  subcommittee  to 
supply  information  concerning  certain  specific  matters  involving  his  activities 
as  a  Member  of  the  Senate. 

And  three,  the  amendment  of  Senator  Flanders,  subparagraph  (17), 
quoting : 

He  has  continued  to  show  his  contempt  for  the  Senate  by  failing  to  explain 
in  any  manner  the  six  charges  contained  in  the  Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson 
report,  which  was  filed  in  January  1953.  This  involves  his  bank  transactions, 
possible  income-tax  evasions,  and  the  Lustron  deal.  The  taint  persists  until  he 
satisfactorily  explains  these  mattei-s,  which  he  refused  to  do,  although  invited 
six  times  to  appear,  during  the  S2d  Congress. 

The  Chairman.  That  conchides  the  specification  with  respect  to  this 
particular  category,  No.  I,  list  of  incidents. 

Now,  the  Chair  will  state  at  this  point  that  the  committee  under- 
stands that  charge  to  refer  to  the  actions  of  Senator  McCarthy  with 
respect  to  requests  of  the  committee  to  appear  before  it.  It  does  not 
construe  it  in  any  way  as  involving  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  matters 
which  the  committee,  presided  over  by  Senator  Gillette,  later  by  Sena- 
tor Hennings  or  by  Senator  Hayden — I  mean  the  subcommittee — it 
does  not  involve  any  of  those  charges,  whether  they  were  true  or  false. 

The  matter  goes  directly  to  the  conduct  of  the  Senator  from  Wiscon- 
sin with  respect  to  the  answer  to  the  summonings  and  the  requests  of 
that  committee  to  appear  before  it. 

Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may,  I  should  like  to  be  heard  by 
the  committeee  at  this  time  on  a  motion  to  dismiss  that  charge  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  legally  insufficient  on  its  face  as  a  predicate  for  the 
censure  of  Senator  McCarthy. 

Nw,  I  should  like  to  predicate  my  motion  upon  two  basic  constitu- 
tional and  legal  principles,  and  call  the  precedents  incident  thereto 
to  the  attention  of  the  Senate  committee  at  this  time. 

I  ask  for  leave  to  make  this  motion  now  because  I  have  not  had  op- 
porunity  heretofore  to  make  it.  This  is  the  first  occasion  upon  which 
I  could  present  this  legal  matter  to  the  committee,  and  I  shall  do  it 
with  the  utmost  dispatch,  if  I  am  granted  permission  to  make  the 
motion  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  statue  them  briefly. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  I  will  say  in  the  beginning,  Mr.  Williams,  that  the 
committee  had  to  pass  on  those  matters  earlier,  and  the  reason  they  are 
presented  here  is  because  we  have  determined  that  question.  How- 
ever, we  will  hear  from  you. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  believe,  sir,  that  there  are  overriding  considera- 
tions of  a  constitutional  level  that  are  more  important  than  any  of  the 
individuals  or  issues  involved  in  this  hearing,  and  I  will  try  to  be  as 
brief  as  possible,  sir,  in  the  interests  and  economy  of  time  in  present- 
ing our  position  on  it,  but  I  ask  you  to  bear  with  me  while  I  do  call 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  outstanding  precedents  in  this 
matter. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  with  the  oral  statement.  How- 
ever, if  you  Avish  to  file  a  brief  on  that  matter,  the  committee  would 
consider  it  that  way,  because  it  wants  to  move  ahead  with  its  testimony.. 


18  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  I  shall  file  a  brief,  too,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  use 
of  tlie  committee,  but  the  statement  that  I  should  like  to  make  at  this 
time  is  an  oral  statement  on  this  subject. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Willi A]\rs.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I 
believe  that  the  char^'es  contained  in  the  first  category  and  classifica- 
tion of  charges  as  presented  by  this  committee  on  August  24,  1954, 
for  two  clear  reasons,  fail  to  present  a  basis  upon  which  a  resolution 
of  censure  can  be  predicated  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  One 
of  these  reasons,  if  the  committee  please,  is  an  overriding  constitu- 
tional reason,  a  reason  that  has  been  supported  by  the  judicial  and 
senatorial  precedent  since  the  beginning  of  our  country,  unbroken  in 
tradition.  It  is  a  constitutional  argument  predicated  upon  the  law, 
sirs,  and  I  might  say  to  you  that  Senator  McCarthy,  who  is  my  client 
in  these  proceedings,  has  evidenced  a  desire  to  me  not  to  pitch  his 
defense  on  this  predicate  because  he  wants  to  meet  this  charge  squarely 
on  the  merits,  and  we  do  intend  to  meet  it  squarely  on  the  merits.  But 
I  have  convinced  him  that  I  should  be  derelict  in  my  duty  as  counsel 
before  this  committee  if  I  did  not  call  to  the  attention  of  this  com- 
mittee every  precedent  that  has  taken  place  on  this  subject  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Senate,  tlie  first  preceden,t  going  back  to  1792. 

And  so  T  say,  by  way  of  recap,  that  our  position  is  two-pronged, 
and  I  should  like  to  address  myself  first  to  the  proposition  that  this 
charge  is  insufficient  on  its  face  legally  and  precedentially,  by  virtue 
of  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  by  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  and  then  I  should  like  to  go  to  the  very  merits  of  the  cliarge  as 
evidenced  by  the  charge  itself,  and  I  shall  not  depart  from  the  record, 
because  as  a  lawyer  that  I  am  confined  to  the  record  on  a  motion  to 
dismiss  at  the  outset  of  these  hearings. 

The  fundamental  proposition  to  which  I  should  like  to  address  my- 
self first,  and  which  I  believe  is  of  overriding  and  transcendental  im- 
portance to  this  committee,  is  this :  Never  in  the  history  of  the  Senate, 
never  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  judicial  system,  has  there 
been  a  censure  imposed  upon  a  Member  of  Congress  for  conduct  ante- 
dating the  inception  of  the  Congress  which  is  hearing  tlie  censure 
charges.  And  this  is  for  a  very  fundamental  constitutional  and  legal 
reason. 

The  predicate  for  censure  stems  from  article  I,  section  5  of  the 
Constitution,  which  says  that  each  House  may  pimish  its  Members 
for  disorderly  behavior. 

The  purpose  of  that,  as  we  read  our  constitutional  history,  was  so 
that  each  Congress  could  preserve  its  legislative  processes  free  from 
corruption  and  disorder.  It  was  not  to  provide  a  basis  for  one  Con- 
gress to  review  the  conduct  of  an  individual  throughout  some  other 
Congress  that  antedated  it  and  perhaps  motivated,  sometimes,  by 
partisan  and  political  considerations,  impose  upon  him  a  censure. 
And  this  was  considered  from  our  earliest  times. 

Three  times,  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  three  times  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  said  in  unequivocable,  clear,  and  un- 
ambiguous language,  that  the  power  of  Congress  to  punish  for  con- 
tempt, which  is  the  charge  that  we  are  considering  here  this  morning, 
is  a  power  that  dies  with  the  Congress  wherein  the  contempt  was 
allegedly  committed. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  19" 

It  enunciated  this  basic  proposition  of  law  in  the  case  of  Ande7'son  v. 
Dunn  (6  Wheat.  204).  It  enunciated  it  again  in  Jurney  v.  Mac- 
Cracken  (294  U.  S.  125)  ;  and  it  enunciated  it  a  third  time  in  United 
States  V.  Br-yan  (339  U.  S.  323),  so  recently  as  within  the  last  5  or  & 
years. 

Not  only  have  we  had  an  unbroken  line  of  judicial  precedent  upon 
this  subject,  but  the  Senate  itself  and  the  House  of  Representatives 
itself  have  from  time  to  time  carefully  weighed  and  evaluated  this 
proposition.  And  I  feel  that  it  would  be  helpful  to  this  committee — 
and  I  conceive  that  to  be  at  least  half  of  my  function  in  this  case — I 
feel  that  it  would  be  helpful  to  this  committee  if  I  made  a  very  cursory 
rundown — and  I  promise  to  be  brief — as  brief  as  the  exigencies  of  the 
circumstances  permit — to  call  these  precedents  to  the  committee's 
attention. 

The  Chairman.  We  suggest  that  you  do  that  in  a  brief. 

This  matter  has  been  considered  by  the  committee  and  it  has  had 
to  do  that  in  selecting  the  charges  to  be  heard.  And  if  you  will  submit 
that  in  a  brief — we  have  precedents — we  do  not  care  to  go  into  a  long- 
legal  argument — if  you  make  the  argument  we  probably  ought  to  have 
developed  what  we  have  in  the  legal  setup — we  have  obtained  that  in 
our  research — and  when  you  get  through  with  that  probably  the  whole 
day  would  be  consumed — that  can  all  be  taken  care  of  in  a  brief  that 
can  be  submitted  by  you  in  giving  us  the  precedents. 

Our  counsel  and  others  have  also  run  down  the  precedents.  We  do 
not  agree  with  j^ou.  And  that  is  obvious  or  we  would  not  have  the 
charges  before  us  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  think  that  is  all  the  more  reason 


The  Chairman.  You  can  submit  vour  brief — we  will  permit  vou  to 
submit  a  brief  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Williams.  May  I  say  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  you  say  to  me, 
sir,  that  the  committee  does  not  agree  with  me  it  demonstrates  to  me 
all  the  more  reason  for  permitting  me  to  make  an  oral  argument  on 
this  subject,  because  if  the  committee  has  a  predeliction  and  predispo- 
sition on  this  legal  matter  as  we  begin  the  hearings,  then  certainly  I 
should  be  afforded  as  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy  at  least  a  hearing 
on  these  propositions  of  law. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  being  denied  that  hearing — you  can 
file  your  briefs  and  that  will  be  considered  by  the  committee. 

We  necessarily  in  this  board  of  inquiry,  which  is  not  exactly  a  court 
trial — it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  judicial  proceeding — had  to  make  some 
preliminary  determinations  or  we  could  not  move  forward  at  all. 

You  can  submit  that  brief  and  we  will  reserve  the  question,  but  we 
would  like  to  go  on  with  the  proceedings,  if  permitted.  You  can  state 
the  general  grounds  of  your  objection,  and  I  think  that  any  court 
would  permit  you  to  do  that,  but  I  think  any  court  would  also  require 
you,  if  it  deemed  it  necessary,  to  submit  a  brief  on  tliat  point. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  abide,  of  course,  by  your 
decision  this  morning  and  throughout  this  heai'ing  so  long  as  I  am 
counsel,  but  I  would  like  to  say  to  you,  sir,  that  I  feel  that  this  is  the 
heart  of  our  defense.  On  this  first  charge,  I  do  intend  to  submit 
written  argument,  but  I  should  like  to  ask  the  committee,  if  I  may  have 
just  one  half  hour  to  present  our  views  on  this  matter  which  I  regard 
as  the  heart  of  our  defense.  And  I  understood  as  I  entered  this  case 
that  it  was  to  be  judicial  in  nature.     I  understood  from  my  reading  of 


"20  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

the  precedents  that  a  proceeding  of  this  kind  is  judicial  in  nature  and 
that  all  of  the  rights  that  adhere  to  any  accused  in  any  tribunal  are 
to  adhere  to  the  Senator  who  is  before  you  today. 

And  I  must,  at  the  risk  of  being  derelict  in  my  duty,  ask  once  again 
for  the  right  to  present  orally  this  position  which  I  believe  to  be  so 
important,  and  which  I  believe  cannot  adequately  be  presented  in  a 
written  brief. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  being  denied  any  of  your  rights.  I 
think  the  Chair  is  acquainted  with  court  procedure  and  rights  that  may 
be  permitted.  And  I  know  when  counsel  can  submit  briefs,  when  the 
court  is  in  doubt  or  wishes  to  have  the  matter  further  heard. 

We  are  willing  to  consider  the  matter  at  length  when  you  have  filed 
your  briefs,  but  we  have  made  the  ruling  and  we  will  now  proceed  with 
the  testimony. 

Now,  Mr.  Chadwick,  have  you  checked  the  Senate  records  with 
reference  to  the  charges,  the  specifications  under  incident  listed  as 
No.l? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  have,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  an  investigation  appertaining  to  all 
of  the  documents  that  may  have  a  bearing  on  that  matter  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  understood  that  it  was  a  part  of  my  duties  to  find 
not  only  matters  which  might  be  affirmative  in  support  of  the  resolu- 
tion, but  also  any  matter  which  might  be  in  fairness  reflected  in  these 
hearings  for  the  benefit  of  Senator  McCarthy,  and  I  did  my  best. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  read  what  you  have  obtained  there  and 
mention  each  exhibit  as  3^011  go  along. 

The  Chair  is  acquainted  with  this  material — has  studied  it  some- 
what— so  that  the  Chair  can  anticipate  what  is  going  to  be  presented. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  call  j^our  attention  and  ask  you  to 
take  judicial  notice  or  legislative  notice,  for  those  wlio  are  more  par- 
ticular in  the  use  of  words,  with  respect  to  proceedings  in  the  Senate 
on  August  6,  1951,  being  Senate  Resolution  No.  187,  introduced  by 
Senator  Benton  to  investigate  Senator  McCarthy. 

The  record  will  show  that  the  President  of  the  Senate  referred  Reso- 
lution No.  187,  introduced  by  Senator  Benton,  to  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  and  Administration.  And  with  your  permission  I 
will  now  read  the  substance  of  Senate  Resolution  No.  187. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  From  the  printed  copy.  Senate  Resolution  No.  187, 
I  will  omit  the  technical  matter  at  the  beginning  and  commence  with 
the  word : 

Resolution 

Whereas  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  Committee  on 
"Rules  and  Administration  has  made  a  nnanimous  report  to  such  committee  with 
respect  to  the  1950  Maryland  senatorial  general  election ;  and 

Whereas  such  report  contains  findings  with  respect  to  the  financing  of  the 
campaign  of  Senator  .Tohn  Marshall  Butler  as  follows : 

"1.  As  a  result  of  the  investigation  and  hearings  of  this  subcommittee,  Jon  M. 
Jonkel,  the  campaign  manager  of  Senator  P.utler.  has  been  indicted,  pled  guilty 
to,  and  has  been  sentenced  for  violation  of  the  Maryland  election  laws  for  failure 
to  properly  report  contributions  and  expenditures  in  the  Butler  campaign. 

"2.  Not  only  were  substantial  sums  of  contributions  and  expenditures  not 
■properly  reported  to  Maryland  authorities  as  required  by  law,  but  also  a  proper 
accounting  was  not  made  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  as  required  by  the  Fed- 
eral Corrupt  Practices  Act";  and 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  21 

Whereas  sucli  report,  with  respect  to  the  literature  used  in  the  campaign  of 
Senator  John  Marshall  Butler,  contains  findings  as  follows : 

li-J^       *     *     ;!= 

"The  tabloid  From  the  Record  contains  misleading  half-truths,  misrepresenta- 
tions, and  false  innuendoes  that  maliciously  and  without  foundation  attack  the 
loyalty  and  patriotism  not  only  of  former  Senator  Millard  Tydings,  who  won 
the  Distinguished  Service  Cross  for  battlefield  heroism  in  World  War  I,  but 
also  the  entire  membership  of  the  Senate  Armed  Services  Committee  in  1950. 

"2.  Its  preparation,  publication,  and  distribution  were  the  result  of  a  combi- 
nation of  forces,  including  Senator  Butler's  own  campaign  organization. 

"3.  The  tabloid,  disregarding  simple  decency  and  common  honesty,  was  de- 
signed to  create  and  exploit  doubts  about  the  loyalty  of  former  Senator  Tydings. 

"4.  It  could  never  have  been  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  first  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  to  allow,  xinder  the  guise  of  freedom  of  the  press,  the 
publication  of  any  portrayal,  whether  in  picture  form  or  otherwise,  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  composite  picture  as  it  appeared  in  the  tabloid  From  the  Record. 
It  was  a  shocking  abuse  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  first  amendment  to  the 
Constitution. 

"5.  The  tabloid  From  the  Record  was  neither  published  nor  in  fact  paid  for 
by  the  Young  Democrats  for  Butler.  Their  alleged  sponsorship  for  this  publica- 
tion was  nothing  more  than  a  false  front  organization  for  the  publication  of 
the  tabloid  by  the  Butler  campaign  headquarters  and  outsiders  associated  with 
It.  In  the  judgment  of  the  subcommittee,  this  is  a  violation  of  the  Federal  and 
State  laws  requiring  persons  responsible  for  such  publications  to  list  the  organiza- 
tions and  its  officers"  ;  and 

•  Whereas  such  subcommittee  report  contains  findings  with  respect  to  the  par- 
ticipation of  Senator  .Joseph  R.  McCarthy  in  sucli  campaign  as  follows: 

"3.  Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  of  Wisconsin,  was  actively  interested  in  the 
■campaign  to  the  extent  of  making  his  staff  available  for  work  on  research,  pic- 
tures, composition,  printing  of  the  tabloid  From  the  Record.  Members  of  lais 
staff  acted  as  couriers  of  funds  between  Washington  and  the  Butler  campaign 
headquartei'S  in  Baltimore.  Evidence  showed  that  some  of  the  belatedly  re- 
ported campaign  funds  were  delivered  through  his  office.  His  staff  also  was 
instrumental  in  materially  assisting  in  the  addressing,  mailing,  and  planning  of 
the  picture-postcard  phase  of  the  campaign" ;  and 

Whereas  such  subcommittee  unanimously  included  in  its  specific  conclusions 
and  recommendation  to  the  committee  the  following: 

"5.  The  question  of  unseating  a  Senator  for  acts  committed  in  a  senatorial 
election  should  not  be  limited  to  the  candidates  in  such  elections.  Any  sitting 
Senator,  regardless  of  whether  he  is  a  candidate  in  the  election  himself,  should 
he  subject  to  expulsion  by  action  of  the  Senate,  if  it  finds  sucli  Senator  engaged 
in  practices  and  behavior  that  make  him,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate,  unfit  to 
hold  the  position  of  United  States  Senator"  Now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration  of  the  Senate  is 
authorized  and  directed  to  proceed  with  such  consideration  of  the  report  of  its 
Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  with  respect  to  the  19.50  Maryland 
senatorial  general  election,  which  was  made  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution  250, 
81st  Congress,  April  13,  1950,  and  to  make  such  further  investigation  with  re- 
spect to  the  participation  of  Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy  in  the  1950  senatorial 
campaign  of  Senator  John  Marshall  Butler,  and  such  investigation  with  respect 
to  his  other  acts  since  his  election  to  the  Senate,  as  may  be  appropriate  to  en- 
-able  such  committee  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  should  initiate  action  with 
a  view  toward  the  expulsion  from  the  United  States  Senate  of  the  said  Senator 
Joseph  R.  McCarthy. 

The  Chairman.  I  may  say  that  the  readinsi:  of  the  resolution  was  not 
related  as  to  whether  it  was  either  true  or  false,  I  mean  with  respect 
to  the  charf^es,  but  merely  to  show  that  the  resolution  had  been  intro- 
duced in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  that  it  was  before  a 
•certain  committee. 

Now,  you  have  the  record  with  respect  to  the  resolution  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  have  the  record  of  the  legislative  history  of  the 
resolution,  sir. 

Report  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  to  the  Committee  on 
Rules  and  Administration,  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution  187  and  Senate  Reso- 
lution 304,  page  1. 


22  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  resolution  was  referred  by  the  President  of  the  Senate  to  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration  and,  in  turn,  to  its 
Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  for  proper  action. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  with  the  record. 

Mr.  Chadt\'ick.  Mr.  Chairman,  further  support  of  the  matters  cog- 
nizable under  the  first  paragraph — I  request  your  leave,  and  I  have 
been  directed,  to  read  into  the  record  from  the  exhibits  in  the  report 
of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  to  the  Committee 
on  Eules  and  Administration  with  respect  to  Senate  Resolution  187 
and  Senate  Resolution  304. 

I  will  proceed  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  are  you  going  to  read  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Read  the  letters,  sir,  from  the  report  of  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  Letters  between  whom? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Well,  the  first  one  will  be  a  letter  from  Senator 
Guy  M.  Gillette  to  Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCarthy. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Wiixi.ams.  In  the  economy  of  time,  Mr.  Chaii-man,  Senator 
McCarthy  is  perfectly  willing  to  stipulate  to  the  authenticity  of  these 
letters,  instead  of  taking  the  time  of  this  committee  to  read  them. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  It  is  not  a  question  of  authenticity. 

The  Chairman.  We  want  them  read  into  the  record,  sir.  We  will 
accept  a  stipulation  with  respect  to  the  authenticity,  but  it  is  the 
purpose  of  the  committee  to  have  them  placed  in  the  record  by  the 
reading  of  them. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  thinking  of  the  economy  of  time.  They  could 
be  copied  by  the  reporter. 

The  Chairman.  If  it  takes  too  much  time  in  the  course  of  these 
proceedings,  we  will  think  of  economy  measures,  but  at  the  moment, 
we  do  not  think  we  need  to  so  do. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  desire  to  explain  for  the  purposes  of  the  record 
that  these  letters  will  be  read,  including  their  exhibit  number  jn  the 
report  from  which  they  are  drafted,  for  the  purpose  of  convenient 
reference  in  the  future. 

I  shall  read  the  date,  the  address,  the  body  of  each  letter  which  I 
read,  and  the  name  of  the  author  of  the  letter,  which  was  signed 
thereby. 

The  first  is  exhibit  No.  3,  which  happens  to  commence  on  page  61 
of  the  report  in  question.  It  is  a  letter  dated  September  25,  1951. 
It  is  addressed  to  Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  United  States  Senate, 
and  it  is  signed  by  Senator  Guy  M.  Gillette. 

It  reads  as  follows 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Was  this  date  prior  to  the  resignation  of  Senator 
Gillette  as  chairman?  Was  he  chairman  at  the  time  he  wrote  this 
letter  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  record,  I  think,  shows  that  he  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  We  will  so  stipulate. 

The  CiiAiRiMAN.  He  was  chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privi- 
leges and  Elections,  which  is  a  subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules  and  Administration  of  the  United  States  Senate. 


HEARENGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  23 

The  record  will  also  show  and  we  will  take  judicial  notice  of  that 
fact,  as  we  are  of  all  these  other  matters,  that  it  was  referred  to  a 
subcommittee — that  is,  under  Eesolution  187. 

You  may  proceed, 

Mr,  Chadwick  (reading)  : 

My  Dear  Joe:  I  promised  to  tell  you  the  decision  of  the  Subcommittee  on 
Privileges  and  Elections  as  to  procedure  as  soon  as  they  had  made  the  decision. 
They  are  goinsr  to  take  up  the  Benton  resolution  at  9  :  30  a.  m.,  Friday,  September 
28,  in  room  457.  At  that  time  they  are  going  to  hear  Senator  Benton's  state- 
ment. They  voted  to  hear  the  Senator  in  executive  session  but  also  voted  that 
you  could  be  present  if  you  so  desired  and  if  time  permitted,  to  make  a  state- 
ment at  this  same  meeting.  It  was  also  decided  that  there  should  be  no  cross- 
examination  except  by  the  members  of  the  subcommittee. 

A  further  decision  was  made  that  if  additional  evidence  is  taken,  it  will  be 
governed  by  rules  of  procedure  determined  after  this  first  meeting. 

With  personal  greetings,  I  am, 
Sincerely, 

Gut  M.  Gillette. 

There  are  the  identifying  initials  "GMG :  dd," 

Exhibit  Xo.  4,  a  letter  dated  October  1,  1951,  from  Senator  Gillette 
to  Senator  McCarthy,  addressed  as  follows : 

Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCarthy, 

United  States  Senator,  Washinffton,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator:  On  last  Friday,  September  28,  Senator  Benton  appeared 
before  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  and  presented  a  statement 
in  support  of  his  resolution  looking  to  action  pertaining  to  your  expulsion  from 
the  Senate.  You  had  been  advised  that  you  could  attend  this  meeting  which  was 
a  public  one,  but  without  the  right  of  cross-examination  of  Senator  Benton. 
The  subcommittee  recessed  to  reassemble  on  call  of  the  chairman.  The  chair- 
man announced  at  the  close  of  the  meeting  that  an  opportunity  would  be  ac- 
corded Senator  McCarthy  to  appear  and  make  any  statement  he  wished  to  make 
concerning  the  matter  and  with  the  right  of  Senator  Benton  to  be  present,  but 
without  any  right  on  the  part  of  Senator  Benton  to  cross-examine  you  in  any 
way.  This  is  to  notify  you  that  this  action  was  taken  and  the  subcommittee 
will  be  glad  to  hear  you  at  an  hour  mutually  convenient.  It  is  hoped  that  if  you 
desire  to  appear  and  make  any  statement  in  connection  with  this  matter,  that  a 
time  can  be  fixed  before  the  10th  of  October.  I  should  be  glad  to  have  your 
comment  relative  to  a  convenient  time  for  you  if  you  desire  to  come  before  us. 
If  you  do  not  so  desire  I  shall  appreciate  it  if  you  will  advise  us  of  that  fact. 

With  personal  greetings,  I  am, 
Sincerely, 

Guy  M.  Gillette. 

Mr.  Chadwick,  Next  is  exhibit  No.  5,  which  is  identified,  the  third 
of  these  exhibits,  in  the  text  of  that  exhibit  as  a  "copy"  in  brackets, 
and  it  quotes  "A,"  which  is  not  too"  clear  to  me,  but  it  is  on  the  paper, 
and  dated  October  4,  1051.  It  is  a  letter  to  the  Honoral)le  Guy  M. 
Gillette,  from  Senator  McCarthy,  and  it  reads  as  follows : 

Dear  Guy  :  This  is  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  October  1  in  which 
y()u  offer  me  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  your  committee  and  answer  Sena- 
tor Benton's  charges. 

Frankly,  Guy,  I  have  not  and  do  not  intend  to  even  read,  much  less  answer, 
Benton's  smear  attack.  I  am  sure  yon  realize  that  the  Benton  type  of  material 
can  be  found  in  the  D'aily  Worker  almost  any  day  of  the  week  and  -Rail  con- 
tinue to  flow  from  the  mouths  and  pens  of  the  camp  followers  as  long  as  I  con- 
tinue my  fight  against  Communists  in  Government. 

With  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am, 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 

It  is  identified  by  the  initials  "McC  :ct," 


24  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  No.  6,  also  designated  as  "copy''  and 
it  quotes  the  letter  "B."  It  is  dated  December  6,  1951.  It  is  a  letter 
from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Guy  Gillette,  addressed  to  him  a& 
chairman  of  the  Elections  Subcommittee  of  the  United  States  Senate^ 
Washington,  D.  C,  and  reads  as  follows : 

Dear  Mr.  Chairman  :  As  you  of  course  know,  your  Elections  Subcommittee 
has  the  power  and  the  duty  to  carefully  investigate  any  valid  claims  of  irregu- 
larity or  dishonest  in  the  conduct  of  campaigns  for  the  United  States  Senate. 

As  you  and  all  the  members  of  your  subcommittee  know  or  should  know,  the 
Elections  Subcommittee,  unless  given  further  power  by  the  Senate,  is  restricted 
to  matters  having  to  do  with  elections.  The  Senate  could,  of  course,  by  a  ma- 
jority vote  give  your  subcommittee  power  to  conduct  an  unlimited  investigation, 
of  any  Senator.  Such  power  was  not  asked  for  nor  given  to  your  Elections 
Subcommittee. 

However,  over  the  past  months,  it  has  been  repeatedly  brought  to  my  attentioa 
that  a  horde  of  investigators  hired  by  your  committee  at  a  cost  of  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  dollars  of  taxpayers'  money,  has  been  engaged  exclusively  in  trying 
to  dig  up  on  McCarthy  material  covering  periods  of  time  long  before  he  was  even 
old  enough  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  Senate — material  which  can  have  no  con- 
ceivable connection  with  his  election  or  any  other  election.  This  Is  being  done 
in  complete  disregard  of  the  limited  power  of  your  Elections  Subcommittee.  The- 
obvious  purpose  is  to  dig  up  campaign  material  for  the  Democratic  Party  for  th& 
coming  campaign  against  McCarthy. 

When  your  Elections  Subcommittee,  without  Senate  authorization,  spends- 
tens  of  thousands  of  taxpayers'  dollars  for  the  sole  purpose  of  digging  up  cam- 
paign material  against  McCarthy,  then  the  committee  is  guilty  of  stealing  just 
as  clearly  as  though  the  members  engaged  in  picking  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayers 
and  turning  the  loot  over  to  the  Democratic  National  Committee. 

If  one  of  the  administration  lackeys  were  chairman  of  this  committee,  I  would 
not  waste  the  time  or  energy  to  write  and  point  out  the  committee's  complete- 
dishonesty,  but  from  you,  Guy,  the  Senate  and  the  country  expect  honest  adher- 
ence to  the  rules  of  tlie  Senate. 

If  your  committee  wanted  to  dig  up  campaign  material  against  McCarthy  at 
the  expense  of  the  taxpayers,  you  were  in  all  honesty  bound  to  first  get  the  power 
to  do  so  from  the  Senate,  which  the  Senate  had  a  right  to  give  and  might  have 
given.  But  your  committee  did  not  risk  asking  for  such  power.  Instead,  your 
committee  decided  to  spend  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  of  taxpayers'  money  to 
aid  Benton  in  his  smear  attack  upon  McCarthy. 

Does  this  mean,  that  if  a  Benton  asks  your  committee  to  do  so,  you  will  put  an^ 
unlimited  number  of  investigators  at  unlimited  cost  investigating  the  background 
of  tlie  other  95  Senators  so  their  opponents  can  use  this  material  next  election? 
Or  is  this  a  rule  which  applies  only  to  him  who  fights  Communists  in  Government? 
Let's  get  an  answer  to  this,  Guy.  The  people  of  America  are  entitled  to  your 
answer. 

While  the  actions  of  Benton  and  some  of  the  committee  members  do  not  sur- 
prise me,  I  cannot  iTuderstand  your  being  willing  to  label  Guy  Gillette  as  a  man 
who  will  head  a  committee  which  is  stealing  from  the  pockets  of  the  American 
taxpayer  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  and  then  using  this  money  to  protect  the 
Democratic  Party  from  the  political  effect  of  the  exposure  of  Communists  in 
Government.  To  take  it  upon  yourself  to  hire  a  horde  of  investigators  and  spend 
tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  without  any  authorization  to  do  so  from  the  Senate 
is  labeling  your  Elections  Subcommittee  even  more  dishonest  than  was  the 
Tydings  committee. 

The  chairman  suggests  that  one  of  the  other  copies,  which  is  a 
photographic  transition  of  the  letters  from  the  report,  Mr.  Williams, 
would  be  easier  to  read  only  because  the  book  is  hard  to  turn. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  easier  course  I  am  still  willing  to  stipulate  to, 
]Mr.  Chadwick,  that  we  can  regard  all  of  this  as  in  the  record  right 
now,  and  I  will  so  stipulate. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  recall  your  stipulation. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  that,  and  the  committee  desires  to 
have  this  read  into  the  record. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  25 

I  mentioned  the  matter  of  time  before.  This  is  important,  and 
there  is  enough  time  to  take  on  the  matters  that  we  need  to  do  now. 

When  I  referred  to  the  matter  of  time  with  reference  to  your  offer 
to  argue  the  legal  questions,  I  expected  to  give  you  time  to  do  that  in 
a  brief  that  we  could  sit  down  and  consider,  but  this  committee  is  not 
so  set  up  that  we  can  determine  all  these  legal  questions. 

The  questions  that  are  referred  to  the  committee  we  gather  evidence 
on.  The  Senate  may  decide  we  are  dead  wrong,  and  it  may  decide 
we  are  right.  They  are  the  final  arbiter.  We  are  only  an  agent  of 
the  Senate  to  gather  the  evidence  in  matters  of  law  and  all  that  sort 
of  thing,  and  we  prefer  to  have  the  legal  arguments,  except  barely 
the  statement  of  the  grounds,  legal  arguments  with  reference  to  the 
precedents  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  in  detail  put  before  us  in  briefs. 
We  consider  it  much  better  that  way.  That  is  the  reason  I  made  the 
ruling  I  did  before. 

Senator  EmT:N.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  I  make  one  statement  com- 
mending the  chairman  for  his  ruling  ?  My  father  was  a  trial  lawyer 
in  North  Carolina  for  65  years.  I  entered  his  law  office  32  years  ago, 
and  when  I  did  he  gave  me  this  advice — he  said : 

Salt  down  tbe  facts.     The  law  will  keep. 

And  I  understand  that  was  the  effect  of  the  chairman's  ruling — 
that  we  should  get  the  facts  first  and  then  pass  on  legal  questions  when 
the  facts  are  in. 

The  Chairman.  You  state  it  far  better  than  I  could. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  certainly  willing  to  abide  by  that,  provided 
I  do  get  an  opportunity  to  orally  argue  these  propositions,  because  I 
feel  that  is  the  heart  of  our  defense,  and  I  further  feel  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary,  in  the  light  of  the  Chair's  statement,  that  there  is 
some  predisposition  on  the  part  of  the  committee  on  this  matter  of  law. 

The  Chaiemax.  May  I  say  this :  In  order  to  get  before  the  Senate 
material  on  these  various  charges,  it  is  necessary  to  have  evidence  pro- 
duced, and  we  can  have  the  legal  arguments  produced,  but  we  are  not 
the  final  arbiters. 

We  are  merely  the  agents  of  the  Senate  to  gather  together  this 
information  and  to  use  such  rules  and  regulations  as  we  can  in  screen- 
ing out  and  trying  to  keep  the  investigation  on  the  track. 

If  we  were  the  final  arbiter,  or  if  we  were  a  court,  that  would  be 
another  matter.  Then  you  would  be  entitled  probably  to  present  in 
more  detail  your  arguments  as  you  go  along. 

However,  most  courts  recognize  the  facts  that  they  will  take  the 
statement  of  the  grounds  and  allow  the  matter  to  be  presented  more 
in  detail  in  briefs,  particularly  if  there  is  any  doubt  on  it,  and  I  think 
in  this  case  you  should  present  those  arguments  in  a  brief,  because 
the  Senate  sliould  have  before  it  the  argimients  pro  and  con. 

But  it  isn't  necessary  for  us  to  sit  and  listen  to  that  as  a  matter  of 
law,  because  you  have  stated  now  the  general  situation. 

I  overruled  your  motion,  so  we  will  proceed  now  to  take  the  evidence. 

In  any  event,  we  ought  to  get  this  evidence  because  the  Senate  later 
on  may  decide  that  we  are  right  or  it  may  decide  you  are  right,  but  if 
they  decide  we  are  right,  and  we  struck  the  testimon}^  and  didn't  take 
any  of  it,  then  there  would  be  nothing  before  the  Senate  to  work  on, 
so  we  want  that  information. 


26  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr,  Chairman,  I  am  sure  that  you  will  understand 
if  I  most  respectfully  continue  throughout  this  hearing  to  insist  on  my 
right  to  be  heard  on  these  propositions. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  right,  and  you  will  understand  we  have  an 
obligation  here  to  perform,  and  that  is  to  rule,  and  to  rule  properly. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  to  state  the  rulings,  and  if  we  are  wrong  we 
will  consider  these  matters  in  committee,  and  if  the  other  members  of 
the  committee  believe  the  chairman  is  wrong,  the  chairman  is  willing 
to  be  corrected,  and  we  will  indicate  clearly  where  we  think  we  have 
made  an  error  during  the  course  of  the  hearing. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

JSIr.  Chadwick.  ]Mr.  Chairman,  my  associate  calls  my  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  reading  exhibit  6,  which  I  have  just  completed,  I  men- 
tioned the  date  as  December  6, 1954.  If  that  is  true,  I  desire  to  correct 
that.     The  correct  date  is  December  6, 1951 . 

E:^liibit,7  is  a  letter  from  Senator  Gillette  to  Senator  McCarthy, 
dated  December  6, 1951,  and  there  is  noted  in  the  head  in  brackets,  the 
word  "copy." 

Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy, 

United  States  Senate,  Washbu/ton,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator  :  Your  letter  dated  December  6  and  referring  to  the  work 
of  the  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  in  the  discharge  of  its 
duties  relative  to  Resolution  No.  187  has  just  been  received  by  messenger.  This 
resolution,  on  its  introduction  by  Senator  Benton,  was  referred  by  the  Senate  to 
the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration,  of  which  you  are  a  member.  This 
committee,  in  its  turn,  referred  the  resolution  to  its  Subcommittee  on  Privileges 
aud  Elections,  of  whicli  I  am  the  chairman. 

Our  subcommittee  certainly  did  not  seek  or  welcome  the  unpleasant  task  of 
studying  and  reporting  on  a  resolution  Involving  charges  looking  to  the  ouster 
of  one  of  our  colleagues  from  the  Senate.  However,  ovir  duty  was  clear  in  the 
task  assigned  to  us  and  we  shall  discharge  that  duty  in  a  spirit  of  utmost  fairness 
to  all  concerned  and  to  the  Senate.  We  have  ordered  our  staff  to  study  and 
report  to  us  on  both  the  legal  and  factual  phases  of  the  resolution.  On  receiving 
these  reports  the  subcommittee  will  then  determine  its  course  in  the  light  of  its 
responsibilities  and  authority. 

Your  information  as  to  the  use  of  a  large  staff  and  the  expenditure  of  a  large 
sum  of  money  in  investigations  relative  to  the  resolution  is,  of  course,  erroneous. 
May  I  also  assure  you  that  no  individuals  or  groups  outside  of  the  subcommittee 
membership  have  had  or  will  liave  any  influence  whatever  in  the  work  assigned 
to  us  to  do. 

With  personal  greetings,  I  am 
Sincerely, 

Guy  M.  Gillette. 

Identified  by  the  initials  "GMG :  cc." 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  No.  8,  also  marked  in  parentheses,  "copy," 
and  the  letter  "C."  It  is  a  letter  dated  December  7,  1951,  by  Senator 
McCarthy  to  Senator  Gillette,  and  addressed  to  him  as  chairman  of 
the  Subcommittee  on  Elections  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. : 

Dear  Senator  Gillette  :  I  would  very  much  appreciate  receiving  the  following 
information : 

(1)  The  number  of  people  employed  by  the  Elections  Subcommittee,  together 
with  information  on  their  employment  background,  the  salaries  they  receive,  and 
the  length  of  time  they  have  been  employed. 

(2)  The  names  of  tlie  above  individuals  who  have  been  working  on  the 
investigation  of  Senator  McCarthy. 

(3)  Wliether  they  have  been  instructed  to  restrict  their  investigation  to  mat- 
ters concerning  elections. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  27 

(4)  If  the  investigators  have  been  ordered  to  cover  matters  other  than  either 
my  election  or  any  other  election  in  which  I  took  part,  then — 

the  printed  word  is  "than" — 

the  theory  of  the  law  under  which  you  feel  an  election  subcommittee  is  entitled 
to  hire  investigators  to  go  into  matters  other  than  those  concerned  with  elections. 
I  am  sure  that  you  will  agree  that  I  am  entitled  to  this  information. 

Signed,  "Joe  McCarthy,"  and  with  the  words,  "Sincerely  yours." 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  9,  also  containing  the  word  "copy"  in 

brackets.     It  is  a  letter  dated  December   11,   1951,  from  Senator 

Guy  M.  Gillette  to  the  Honorable  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  addressed  to 

the  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

My  Dear  Senator:  I  received  your  letter  dated  December  7  in  which  you 
make  inquiry  and  request  for  certain  specific  information. 

As  you  are  a  member  of  the  Rules  Committee,  I  feel,  as  you  suggested,  that 
you  are  entitled  to  the  information  relative  to  the  personnel  employed  by  the 
Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections.  Y-^ur  first  request  is  as  to  the 
number  of  people  employed  by  the  Elections  Subcommittee,  their  salaries,  and 
the  length  of  time  they  have  been  employed.  The  following  is  the  list  employed 
by  the  subcommittee — 

The   following  is  tabulated.     It   is   tabulated   under  "Employed," 
"Position,"  "Separated  (3),"  "Basic  salary  per  annum." 

This  completes  the  list  of  employees  of  the  subcommittee.  Three  other 
employees  of  the  Rules  Committee  have  been  performing  work  for  the  subcom- 
mittee, including  Mr.  John  P.  Moore,  the  chief  counsel.  You  will  note  that 
3  of  the  6  employees  of  the  subconuuittee  were  taken  on  in  a  temporary  capacity 
after  the  middle  of  October  and  completed  their  assiirned  work  within  a  few 
weeks  time.  These  men  have  done  some  work  in  connection  with  the  Ohio 
senatorial  hearing. 

You  make  further  inquiry  as  to  what  theory  of  the  law  the  subcommittee 
holds  in  connection  with  its  investigatory  work.  We  are  not  working  under  any 
"theory."  All  the  powers  that  we  have  derived  from  dele.:,'ated  responsibilities 
assigned  to  us  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Rales  and  Administration.  We  do 
not  have,  and  could  not  have,  any  power  other  than  so  derived  as  a  subagency 
of  the  standing  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration — 

with  identifying  initials. 

The  next  exhibit  is  a  letter  dated  December  19,  1951,  exhibit  No.  10, 
and  is  a  letter  which  bears  at  the  head  the  word  "Copy"  in  brackets, 
and  the  letter  "D."  It  is  a  letter  signed  by  Senator  McCarthy  ad- 
dressed to  Senator  Guy  Gillette,  chairman  of  the  Subcommitee  on 
Elections  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C.  : 

Dear  Senator  Gillette  :  On  December  7,  I  wrote  you  as  follows  : 

(1)  The  number  of  people  employed  by  "the  Elections  Subcommittee,  together 
with  information  on  their  employment  background,  the  salaries  they  receive, 
and  the  length  of  time  they  have  been  employed. 

Parenthetically,  I  should  state  that  apparently— strike  that  out, 
Mr.  Reporter.     The  accuracy  will  turn  up  later. 

(2)  The  names  of  the  above  individuals  who  have  been  working  on  the  in- 
vestigation of  Senator  McCartliy. 

(3)  Whether  they  have  been  instructed  to  restrict  their  investigation  to  mat- 
ters concerning  elections. 

(4)  If  the  investigators  have  been  ordered  to  cover  matters  other  than  either 
my  election  or  any  other  election  in  which  I  took  part,  then  the  theory  of  the 
law  under  which  you  feel  an  Elections  Subcommittee  is  entitled  to  hire  investi- 
gators to  go  into  matters  other  than  those  concerned  with  elections. 

I  am  sure  you  will  agree  that  I  am  entitled  to  this  information. 


52461—54- 


28  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

That  is  with  reference  to  a  letter  which  has  ah-eady  been  read  into 
the  record.     The  letter  proceeds : 

On  December  11  you  wrote  giving  me  the  names  of  those  employed  by  the  sub- 
committee, stating  that  two  others,  whom  you  did  not  name,  were  also  doing 
work  for  the  subcommittee.  You  did  not  give  me  the  employment  background 
of  the  investigators  as  I  requested.  Why,  Senator,  do  you  refuse  to  give  me 
the  employment  background  of  those  individuals? 

You  also  failed  to  tell  me  whether  the  investigators  have  been  instructed  to 
extend  their  investigation  beyond  matters  having  to  do  with  elections. 

You  state  that  the  only  power  which  your  subcommittee  has  was  derived  from 
the  full  committee.  The  full  committee  appointed  you  chairman  of  an  Elections 
Subcommittee,  but  gave  you  no  power  whatsoever  to  hire  investigators  and  spend 
vast  amounts  of  money  to  make  investigations  having  nothing  to  do  with  elec- 
tions. Again  may  I  have  an  answer  to  my  questions  as  to  why  you  feel  you  are 
entitled  to  spend  the  taxpayers'  money  to  do  the  work  of  the  Democratic  National 
Committee. 

As  I  have  previously  stated,  you  and  every  member  of  your  subcommittee  who 
Is  responsible  for  spending  vast  amounts  of  money  to  hire  investigators,  pay 
their  traveling  expenses,  etc.,  on  matters  not  concerned  with  elections,  is  just  as 
dishonest  as  though  he  or  she  picked  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayers  and  turned  the 
loot  over  to  the  Democratic  National  Committee. 

I  wonder  if  I  might  have  a  frank,  honest  answer  to  all  the  questions  covered 
in  my  letter  of  December  7.  Certainly  as  a  member  of  the  Rules  Committee  and 
as  a  member  of  the  Senate,  I  am  entitled  to  this  information.  Your  failure  to 
give  this  information  highlights  the  fact  that  your  subcommittee  is  not  concerned 
with  investigating  elections,  but  concerned  with  dishonestly  spending  the  tax- 
payers' money  and  using  your  subcommittee  as  an  arm  of  the  Democratic  Na- 
tional Committee. 

Sincerely  yours, 

[s]  Joe  McCarthy. 

and  the  letter  carries  the  initials  at  the  bottom. 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  No.  11,  also  indicated  as  "Copy"  in 
brackets.  It  is  a  letter  dated  December  21,  1951.  It  is  addressed  to 
Senator  McCarthy,  and  signed  by  Guy  M.  Gillette,  and  reads  as 
follows : 

Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator:  Today  I  received  your  letter  of  December  19  quoting 
former  correspondence  in  wliich  you  had  asked  for  some  specific  information 
which  you  feel  was  not  given  you  in  my  reply  to  your  former  request. 

Not  only  as  a  member  of  tlie  Rules  Committee,  but  as  a  member  of  tlie  United 
States  Senate,  you  were  certainly  entitled  to  any  factual  information  relative 
to  the  work  of  our  Subcommittee  of  Rules  and  Administration  or  with  reference 
to  the  members  of  its  staff.  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  give  you  such  information  as 
I  have  or  go  with  you,  if  you  so  desire,  to  the  I'ooms  occupied  by  the  sul>com- 
mittee  and  aid  you  in  securing  any  facts  that  are  there  available,  relative  to  the 
employees  of  the  subcommittee  or  their  work. 

I  am  sure  you  will  agree  that  this  is  preferable  to  an  attempt  to  cover  mat- 
ters of  this  kind  through  an  interchange  of  correspondence.  Unfortunately, 
our  previous  correspondence  concerning  these  matters  found  its  way  into  the  pulj- 
lic  press  and  your  letters  to  me  were  printed  in  full  in  the  pul)li('  press  even  be- 
fore I  received  them.  As  a  former  judge  you  will  appreciate,  I  am  sure,  the  im- 
propriety of  discussing  matters  pertaining  to  pending  litigation  in  the  public 
press.  The  Senate  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration,  having  referred 
the  Benton  resolution  to  our  subcommittee,  has  placed  us  in  a  quasijudicial  posi- 
tion relative  to  a  matter  of  outstanding  importance  involving  the  expulsion  from 
the  Senate  of  a  sitting  member. 

Inquiry  has  disclosed  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  call  the  subcom- 
mittee together  for  further  consideration  of  this  resolution  and  its  import  before 
Monday,  the  7th  of  January,  and  I  am  calling  a  meeting  for  that  date  at  10  a.  m. 
in  my  office. 

When  the  Benton  resolution  was  first  referred  to  the  subcommittee  it  developed 
that  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the  members  as  to  our  responsibility 
under  the  reference  and  the  terms  of  the  resolution.     The  subcommittee  ordered 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  29 

its  staff  to  make  study  and  report  of  the  legal  phases  and  precedents  pertaining 
to  the  questions  I'aised  by  the  resolution  and  also  to  report  as  to  certain  allega- 
tions of  fact  contained  in  the  resolution.  We  are  awaiting  these  reports  and, 
on  the  date  of  the  meeting,  which  I  have  called  for  January  7,  it  is  expected 
that  the  subcommittee  will  make  a  decision  as  to  what  further  action,  if  any, 
it  will  take  on  the  resolution. 

As  I  have  told  you  before,  if  you  care  to  appear  before  the  subcommittee, 
we  should  be  glad  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements  as  to  time  and  place. 
Your  letter  and  this  reply  will  be  made  available  to  the  members  of  the  sub- 
committee by  copy  and  you  will  be  promptly  advised  as  to  what  action  the 
subcommittee  decided  to  take. 

In  the  meantime,  as  I  have  stated  above  in  this  letter,  I  shall  be  glad  to 
confer  with  you  personally  as  to  matters  concerning  our  staff  and  its  work. 

In  closing,  may  I  again  assure  you  that  as  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned, 
neither  the  Democratic  National  Committee,  nor  any  other  person  or  group  other 
than  an  agency  of  the  United  States  Senate  has  had  or  will  have  any  influence 
whatever  as  to  my  duties  and  actions  as  a  member  of  the  subcommittee  and 
I  am  just  as  confident  that  no  other  member  of  the  subcommittee  has  been  or 
will  be  so  influenced. 

With  warm  personal  greetings  and  holiday  wishes,  I  am 
Sincerely, 

GtJY  M.  Gillette. 

And  the  initials  at  tlie  bottom  "GINIG  :  cc." 

Exhibit  No.  12  is  a  letter  from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Gny  M. 
Gillette  dated  January  4, 1952  : 

Senator  Guy  M.  Gillbtfte. 

Chairman.  Subcommittee  on  Elections  and  Privileges, 
United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Senator  Gillette:  Your  letter  of  December  21  has  just  been  called  to 
my  attention.  As  you  know  this  was  in  answer  to  my  letter  to  you  of  December 
19.  in  which  I  asked  for  certain  information. 

I  can  easily  understand  that  you  mieht  have  some  difficulty  answering  some 
of  my  questions  without  first  consulting  the  other  members  of  the  subcommittee^ — 
for  example,  the  question  as  to  the  theory  of  the  law  under  which  investigators 
are  being  hired  and  money  being  spent  to  investigate  matters  having  nothing 
whatsoever  to  do  with  elections.  There  is,  however,  one  simple  question  which 
you  could  easily  answer  and  I  am  sure  you  will  agree  that  I  am  entitled  to  the 
answer.  It  is  the  simple  question  of  whether  or  not  you  have  ordered  the 
investigators  to  restrict  their  investigation  to  matters  having  to  do  with  elec- 
tions, or  whether  their  investigations  extend  into  fields  having  nothing  what- 
soever to  do  with  either  my  election  or  the  election  of  any  other  Senator. 
Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     Joe  McCarthy. 

McC :  jh 

The  next  letter  is  marked  "Exhibit  Xo.  12A,"  contains  the  word 
"copy"  at  the  top,  the  date  January  10,  1952.  It  is  addressed  to 
KSenator  Joe  McCarthy  and  is  signed  by  Senator  Guy  M.  Gillette  : 

oMy  Dear  Sexator  :  This  is  an  af'kno\\ledgment  of  the  receipt  of  your  letter 
of  January  4  which  has  just  been  brought  to  my  attention.  Your  letter  makes 
inquiry  as  to  whether  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  "ordered 
the  investigators  to  restrict  their  investigations  to  matters  having  to  do  with 
elections,  or  whether  their  investigations  extend  into  fields  having  nothing 
Avhatever  to  do  with  either  my  election  or  the  election  of  any  other  Senator." 

In  reply,  you  will  recall  that  the  Senate  Committee  on  Rules  and  Adminis- 
tration received  from  the  Senate  the  Benton  resolution  calling  for  a  preliminary 
investigation  relative  to  ouster  proceedings.  The  Rules  Committee  referred 
the  resolution  to  our  subcommittee,  as  any  other  piece  of  legislation  would  be 
referred  to  a  subeonnnittee.  The  subcommittee  met  and  directed  its  staff  to 
make  a  preliminary  study  both  of  the  legal  phases  and  precedents  pertaining 
to  this  type  of  action  and  also  a  preliminary  Investigation  of  the  factual  matter 
charged  in  the  resolution.  They  were  instructed  to  make  these  preliminary 
studies  and  report  to  us  at  as  early  a  time  as  possible.  The  report  on  the  legal 
questions  has  been  received  by  the  subcommittee  and  we  advise  that  the  report 
on  the  factual  charges  will  be  available  to  us  by  the  end  of  this  week.     The 


30  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  801 

subcommittee  then  would  study  the  reports  and  determine  what  action,  if  any, 
they  wish  to  take  in  making  their  report  to  the  Rules  Committee  on  the  resolution. 
The  above  statement  covers  the  question  you  asked  as  to  what  instructions 
were  given  to  the  subcommittee  staff  relative  to  the  Benton  resolution. 
Sincerely, 

Guy  M.  Gillette. 
GMG :  CO 

The  next  letter  is  marked  "Exhibit  13,"  with  the  word  "copy'^ 
bracketed,  and  is  a  letter  dated  March  21,  1952,  addressed  to  the 
Honorable  Carl  Hayden,  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C, 
and  is  signed  by  Senator  McCarthy. 

It  is  as  follows : 

Deak  Senator  Hayden  :  Some  days  ago  you  handed  me  a  letter  from  Senator 
Gillette,  chairman  of  the  Senate  Elections  Subcommittee,  to  you  as  chairman 
of  the  full  committee.  At  that  time  you  informed  me  that  a  majority  of  the 
full  committee  had  adopted  the  subcommittee's  resolution  requesting  that  I 
bring  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate  a  motion  to  discharge  the  Elections  Subcom- 
mittee. You  further  stated  that  the  purpose  of  this  motion  would  be  to  test 
the  jurisdiction  and  integrity  of  the  members  of  the  subcommittee. 

As  I  stated  to  you  the  other  day,  I  feel  it  would  be  entirely  improper  to  dis- 
charge the  Elections  Subcommittee  at  this  time  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  Elections  Subcommittee  unquestionably  has  the  power  and,  when  com- 
plaint is  made,  the  duty  to  investigate  any  improper  conduct  on  the  part  of 
McCarthy  or  any  other  Senator  in  a  senatorial  election. 

The  subcommittee  has  spent  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  and  nearly  a  year 
making  the  most  painstaking  investigation  of  my  part  in  the  Maryland  election, 
as  well  as  my  campaigns  in  Wisconsin.  The  subcommittee's  task  is  not  finished 
until  it  reports  to  the  Senate  the  result  of  that  investigation,  namely,  whether 
they  found  such  misconduct  on  the  part  of  McCarthy  in  either  his  ow  u  campaigns 
or  in  the  Tydings  campaign  to  warrant  his  expulsion  from  the  Senate. 

I  note  the  subcommittee's  request  that  the  integrity  of  the  subcommittee  be 
passed  upon.  As  you  know,  the  sole  question  of  the  integrity  of  the  subcommittee 
concerned  its  right  to  spend  vast  sums  of  money  investigating  the  life  of 
McCarthy  from  birth  to  date  without  any  authority  to  do  so  from  the  Senate. 
However,  the  vote  on  that  question  cannot  affect  the  McCarthy  investigation, 
in  that  tlie  committee  for  a  year  has  been  looking  into  every  possible  phase  of 
McCarthy's  life,  including  an  investigation  of  those  who  contributed  to  my 
unsuccessful  1944  campaign. 

As  you  know,  I  wrote  Senator  Gillette,  chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  that 
I  considered  this  a  completely  dishonest  handling  of  taxpayers'  money.  I  felt 
that  the  Elections  Subcommittee  had  no  authority  to  go  into  matters  other  than 
elections  unless  the  Senate  instructed  it  to  do  so.  However,  it  is  obvious  that 
insofar  as  McCarthy  is  concerned  that  is  now  a  moot  question,  because  the 
staff  has  already  painstakingly  and  diligently  investigated  every  nook  and 
cranny  of  my  life  from  birth  to  date.  Every  possible  lead  on  r^IcCarthy  was 
investigated.  Nothing  that  could  be  investigated  was  left  uninvestigated.  The 
staff's  scurrilous  report,  which  consisted  of  cleverly  twisted  and  distorted  facts, 
was  then  "leaked"  to  the  leftwing  elements  of  the  press  and  blazoned  across 
the  Nation  in  an  attempt  to  further  smear  McCarthy. 

A  vote  of  confidence  in  the  subcommittee  would  be  a  vote  on  whether  or  not 
it  had  the  right,  without  authority  from  the  Senate,  but  merely  on  the  request 
of  one  Senator  (in  the  case,  Senator  Benton)  to  make  a  thorough  and  complete 
investigation  of  the  entire  life  of  another  Senator.  A  vote  to  uphold  the  subcom- 
mittee would  mean  that  the  Senate  accepts  and  approves  this  precedent  and 
makes  it  binding  on  the  Election  Subcommittee  in  the  future. 

A  vote  against  the  subcommittee  could  not  undo  what  the  subcommittee  has 
done  in  regard  to  McCarthy.  It  would  not  force  the  subcommittee  members  to 
repay  into  the  Treasury  the  funds  spent  on  this  investigation  of  McCarthy. 
A  vote  against  the  subcommittee  would  merely  mean  that  the  Senate  disapproves 
what  has  already  been  done  insofar  as  McCarthy  is  concerned,  and  therefore, 
disapproves  an  investigation  of  O'ther  Senators  like  the  one  which  was  made 
of  McCarthy.  While  I  felt  the  subcommittee  exceeded  its  authority,  now  that 
it  has  established  a  precedent  in  McCarthy's  case,  the  same  rule  should  apply  to 
■every  other  Senator.     If  the  subcommittee  brought  up  this  question  before  the 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  31 

investigation  had  been  made,  I  would  have  voted  to  discharge  it.    Now  that  the 
deed  is  done,  however,  the  same  rule  should  apply  to  the  other  95  Senators. 

For  that  reason,  I  would  be  forced  to  vigorously  oppose  a  motion  to  discharge 
the  Elections  Subcommittee  at  this  time. 

I  hope  the  Senate  agrees  with  me  that  it  would  be  highly  improper  to  discharge 
the  Gillette-Monroney  subcommittee  at  this  time,  thereby,  in  effect,  setting  a 
different  rule  for  the  subcommittee  to  follow  in  case  an  investigation  is  asked 
of  any  of  the  other  95  Senators. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 

At  the  bottom,  initials,  and  "cc :  To  all  Senators." 

Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  turn  over  the  responsibility  of  reading  to  my 
able  associate  to  my  right,  and  let  me  rest  my  voice  for  a  minute  ? 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  De  Furia  will  now  read  the  exhibits,  beginning 
with  exhibit  No.  14. 

Mr.  De  Furia.  We  will  read  into  the  record  Senate  Eesolution  300 
of  the  82d  Congress,  2d  session : 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

April  8  {legislative  day,  April  2),  1952. 

Mr.  Hayden  (for  himself,  Mr.  Gillette,  Mr.  Monroney,  Mr.  Hennings,  and  Mr. 
Hendrickson)  submitted  the  following  resolution,  which  was  ordered  to  lie  over 
under  the  rule : 

"Resolution 

"Whereas  Senate  Resolution  187,  to  further  investigate  the  participation  of 
Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy  in  the  Maryland  1950  senatorial  campaign  and 
other  acts,  to  determine  whether  expulsion  proceedings  should  be  instituted 
against  him,  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
(Mr.  Benton)  on  August  6,  1951,  and  was  referred  by  the  Senate  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  and  Administration  ;  and 

"Whereas  on  August  8,  1951,  said  resolution  was  referred  by  the  Committee 
on  Rules  and  Administration  to  its  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections ; 
and 

"Whereas  in  a  series  of  communications  addressed  to  the  chairman  of  said 
subcommittee  during  the  period  between  December  6,  1951.  and  January  4, 
1952,  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  (Mr.  McCarthy)  charged  that  the  subcom- 
mittee lacked  jurisdiction  to  investigate  such  acts  of  the  Senator  from  Wis- 
consin (Mr.  McCarthy)  as  were  not  connected  with  election  campaigns  and 
attacked  the  honesty  of  the  members  of  the  subcommittee,  charging  that,  in 
their  investigation  of  such  other  acts,  the  members  were  improperly  motivated 
and  were  'guilty  of  stealing  just  as  clearly  as  though  the  members  engaged  in 
picking  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayers' ;  and 

"Whereas  on  March  5,  1952,  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections 
adopted  the  following  motion  as  the  most  expeditious  parliamentary  method  of 
obtaining  an  affirmation  by  the  Senate  of  its  jurisdiction  in  this  matter  and  a 
vote  on  the  honesty  of  its  members : 

"  'That  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration  request 
Senator  McCarthy,  of  Wisconsin,  to  raise  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  and  of  the  integrity  of  the  members 
thereof  in  connection  with  its  consideration  of  Senate  Resolution  187  by  making 
a  formal  motion  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  to  discharge  the  committee ;  and  that 
Senator  McCarthy  be  advised  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Rules 
and  Administration  that,  if  he  does  not  take  the  requested  action  in  a  period 
of  time  to  be  fixed  by  stipulation  between  Senator  McCarthy  and  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration,  the  committee  (acting  through 
the  chairman  of  the  standing  committee  or  the  chairman  of  the  subcommittee) 
will  itself  present  such  motion  to  discharge  for  the  purpose  of  affirming  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  subcommittee  and  the  integrity  of  its  members  in  its  con- 
sideration of  the  aforesaid  resolution  ;'  and 

"Whereas  on  March  6,  1952,  the  said  motion  was  also  adopted  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  and  Administration  and  the  chairman  of  said  committee  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  (Mr.  McCarthy)  a  copy  of  the  above-stated 
motion ;  and 


32  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

"Whereas  by  letter  dated  March  21,  1952,  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  (Mr. 
McCarthy)  in  effect  declined  to  take  the  action  called  for  by  the  above-stated 
motion,  repeating  his  charge  that  the  subcommittee  has  been  guilty  of  'a  com- 
pletely dishonest  handling  of  taxpayers'  money,'  referring  to  a  preliminary  and 
confidential  report  of  its  staff  as  'scurrilous'  and  consisting  of  'cleverly  twisted 
and  distorted  facts' : 

Now,  therefore,  to  determine  the  proper  jurisdiction  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules  and  Administration  and  to  express  the  confidence  of  the  Senate  in  its 
committee  in  their  consideration  of  Senate  Kesolution  187,  it  being  understood 
that  the  following  motion  is  made  solely  for  this  test  and  that  the  adoption 
of  the  resolution  is  opjwsed  by  the  members  on  whose  behalf  it  is  submitted, 
be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Administration  be,  and  it  hereby 
is,  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of  Senate  Resolution  187. 

The  Chair:man.  Mr.  de  Furia,  will  you  state  for  tlie  record,  of  -which 
we  will  take  judicial  notice,  as  to  what  happened  to  this  resolution? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Yes,  sir. 

We  ask  that  the  conunittee  take  legislative  notice  of  the  fact  that  the 
Senate  voted  upon  this  resolution  on  April  10,  1952;  that  the  pro- 
ceedings appear  in  the  Congressional  Eecord  of  that  day,  page  3954. 
The  votes  were:  Yeas,  0;  nays,  GO;  not  voting,  36,  and  the  President 
of  the  Senate  declared  that  the  resolution  was  rejected,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  to  the  next  exhibit. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Exhibit  No.  IT  is  a  letter  dated  ]May  7,  1952,  from 
Sejiator  Gillette  to  Senator  McCarthy : 

Hon.  Joseph  R.  McCakthy, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator:  The  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  in  execu- 
tive session  this  morning  voted  to  hold  public  hearings  on  Senate  Resolution 
187,  which  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  William  Benton,  of  Con- 
necticut, on  August  6,  1951,  and  was  thereafter  referred  to  this  subcommittee 
for  action. 

It  was  further  decided  that  the  hearings  are  to  begin  on  Monday,  IMay 
12,  and  that  the  first  charges  to  be  heard  will  be  Senator  Benton's  "Case  No. 
2,"  wherein  it  was  alleged  that  you  had  improperly  received  a  fee  of  $10,000 
in  1948  from  tlie  Lustron  Corp.  for  an  article  on  housing  which  was  included  in 
an  advertising  booklet  published  by  that  company.. 

The  subcommittee  has  not  yet  determined  the  order  of  witnesses  for  this 
first  case  but  we  expect  to  do  so  liy  Friday  after  consultation  with  the  staff. 

In  the  meantime  I  do  wish  to  extend  to  you  the  opportunity  to  appear  at  the 
hearings  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  testimony  relating  to  this  charge.  The 
hearings  in  this  case  will  probably  continue  for  several  days,  and  we  shall  make 
whatever  arrangements  tor  your  appearance  are  most  convenient  for  you. 

Sincerely, 

Guy  M.  Gillette,  Chairman. 

The  next  letter,  Mr.  Chairman,  Exhibit  No.  18,  is  a  letter  dated 
May  8,  1952,  from  Senator  McCarthy'  to  Senator  Gillette  and  reads 
as  follows : 

United  States  Senate, 
Committee  on  Appropriations. 

May  S,  1952. 
Senator  Guy  Gillette, 

Chairman,  Siihcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections, 
United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Senator  Gii-lette:  This  is  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  lettei"  of 
May  7,  in  which  you  state  that  your  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections 
plans  to  hold  public  hearings  on  Benton's  "Charge  No.  2"'  against  me,  namely, 
that  it  was  improper  for  me  to  sell  the  rights  of  my  housing  I)ook  to  the  Lustron 
Corp. 

You  invite  me  to  testify. 

On  what  point  do  you  desire  information? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  33 

The  following  facts  are  all  public  information  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  my 
book : 

I  held  a  press  conference  in  1948  when  the  sale  was  completed  and  announced : 

(1)  The  sale  of  the  housing  book; 

(2)  That  Lustron  was  the  buyer; 

(3)  That  Lustron  would  lie  the  publisher  ; 

(4)  That  the  book  would  be  sold  for  35  cents  per  copy  ; 

(5)  That  the  contract  provided  that  I  would  keep  the  book  up  to  date  for 
5  years,  revising  it  whenever  required  by  any  changes  in  legislation,  lending 
practices,  or  other  matters  affecting  housing ; 

(6)  Tbat  I  had  been  working  on  the  book  for  over  a  year  and  that  every 
line  had  been  checked  for  accuracy  by  every  Government  agency  concerned  with 
housing. 

At  that  time  Lustron  had  been  loaned  money  by  the  RFC,  but  was  apparently 
flourishing  and  producing  an  excellent  prefabricated  house. 

During  the  housing  hearings  which  were  held  throughout  the  country,  I 
found  that  a  vast  number  of  young  men  were  not  even  remotely  aware  of  how 
to  take  advantage  of  the  many  housing  aids  which  we  had  provided  for  them 
by  law.  I  felt  that  writing  a  simple  explanatory  book  so  that  every  young  man 
who  desired  to  buy  or  build  a  home  could  easily  understand  how  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  aids  which  we  had  provided  for  him  by  law  was  even  more  impor- 
tant than  passing  the  proper  laws.     I  proceeded  to  do  this  task. 

Lustron  offered  a  royalty  of  10  cents  per  copy  and  promised  the  widest  cir- 
culation of  any  of  those  who  were  bidding  on  the  book.  The  Congressional 
Record  of  June  19,  1950,  contains  the  correspondence  which  I  had  with  a  great 
number  of  publishers  whom  I  attempted  to  interest  in  putting  out  this  book 
at  a  low  retail  cost.  This  correspondence  starts  on  page  A-4764.  The  pub- 
lishers' replies  boiled  down  to  the  statement  that  they  could  not  afford  to  pub- 
lish such  a  specialized  book  at  a  low  cost. 

In  1950,  after  RFC  had  foreclosed  on  Lustron,  Senator  Fulbright's  committee 
made  a  thorough  investigation  of  Lustron.  Senator  Fulbright,  who  by  the 
greatest  stretch  of  the  imagination  could  not  be  considered  a  friend  of  mine, 
w^as  unable  to  produce  any  evidence  that  McCarthy  ever  directly  or  indirectly 
interceded  with  any  Government  agency  in  behalf  of  Lustron.  The  unquestioned 
evidence  before  that  committee  was  that  "Senator  McCarthy  has  never  been 
interested  in  Lustron,  has  never  interceded  for  Lustron,  has  never  done  anything 
to  influence  any  particular  thing  for  Lustron" — page  200,  Senate  Banking  and 
Currency  Committee,  June  26,  1950.  The  evidence  .also  shows — page  200 — that 
Lustron  received  $46,000  for  the  sale  of  this  book  with  an  advertising  pamphlet. 
Apparently  the  purchase  and  sale  of  this  book  was  Lustron's  only  profitable 
venture. 

I  understand  that  even  though  your  investigators  have  been  very  painstaking 
in  their  attempts,  they  have  been  unable  to  find  even  a  telephone  call  I  made  to 
anyone  in  behalf  of  Lustron.  If  the  administration  knew  of  a  single  contact 
which  I  ever  made  with  RFC  or  any  other  Government  agency  in  behalf  of 
Lustron,  they  would  hardly  be  keeping  it  secret  to  protect  McCarthy.  I  am 
curious  to  know  what  new  facts  you  expect  to  produce  for  the  benefit  of  the  public 
at  this  public  hearing. 

Perhaps  you  are  going  to  produce  evidence  to  show  that  the  day  the  contract 
was  signed,  November  12,  1948,  10  days  after  the  Republicans  lost  control  of  the 
Senate  and  the  House  and  were  defeated  in  the  Presidential  race,  Lustron  bought 
this  book  from  me  because  of  the  tremendous  influence  which  I  have  with  the 
Democrat  administration.  Or  perhaps  you  hope  to  prove  that  the  preparation 
of  the  book  and  the  contract  to  keep  it  up  to  date  for  5  years  was  worth  less  than 
10  cents  a  copy.  If  so,  I  wonder  if  you  plan  on  proving  that  some  of  the  speeches 
which  a  sizable  number  of  yoiu-  Democrat  friends  make  and  magazine  articles 
and  books  which  they  have  written  for  a  fee  are  worth  less  than  the  fee  paid. 

The  announcement  that  you  are  holding  public  hearings  after  nearly  a  year  of 
investigation  carries  the  implication  that  there  is  some  improper  conduct  in 
connection  with  the  sale  of  the  publication  to  Lustron.  I  would  like  to  know 
what  you  claim  that  iniproper  conduct  to  be.  I  assume  you  do  not  claim  it  is 
improper  for  a  Senator  to  write  a  book  or  magazine  article,  because  if  so,  you 
will  have  to  call  many  of  your  Democrat  friends  before  you. 

If  the  "improper  conduct"  is  the  sale  by  a  Senator  of  a  book  or  a  magazine 
article  to  an  apparently  flourishing  corporation  which  has  an  RFC  loan,  no 
hearing  of  any  kind  would  be  necessary,  because  there  can  be  no  dispute  about 
the  fact  that  the  book  was  sold  to  Lustron  and  that  Lustron  did  have  an  RFC 


34  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

loan.  Therefore,  I  assume  that  I  am  not  unreasonable  in  asking  you  what  new 
facts  or  proof  you  expect  to  produce  at  the  public  hearings.  Certainly,  you 
would  not  be  using  the  hearing  merely  as  a  sounding  board  for  more  of  the 
Benton  type  of  smear  attacks. 

In  this  connection  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Benton,  who  has 
made  the  complaint,  has  been  selling  his  publication  and  films  directly  to  the 
State  Department.  Do  you  plan  upon  investigating  this  matter?  Or,  like 
Benton,  do  you  consider  it  proper  for  a  Senator  to  take  money  directly  from  a 
Government  agency  but  improper  to  deal  with  a  private  firm  which  has  a  loan 
from  a  Government  agency  ? 

As  chairman  of  the  committee  investigating  Benton's  charges,  I  am  sure  you 
are  aware  that  Political  Affairs,  the  official  Communist  Party  publication  which 
sets  forth  the  current  tasks  and  problems  of  the  party,  has  ordered  Commu- 
nist Party  members  to  "support  the  Benton  resolution  to  oust  McCarthy  from 
the  Senate"  (Political  Affairs,  October  1951,  p.  29).  This  publication  has 
been  labeled  by  the  House  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities  as  the  tlieo- 
retical  organ  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Shortly  before  Benton  appointed  himself  to  lead  the  fight  to  smear  and  dis- 
credit McCarthy,  the  Communist  Party  through  its  then  secretary,  Gus  Hall 
(who  has  since  been  jailed)  officially  proclaimed  that  all  Communist  Party  mem- 
bers must  "yield  second  place  to  none  in  the  fight  to  rid  our  country  of  the  fascist 
poison  of  McCarthyism"  (Daily  Worker,  May  4,  1950). 

The  Communist  Party  has  officially  proclaimed  and  published  in  the  Daily 
Worker  that  one  of  its  major  tasks  is  to  discredit  and  smear  McCarthy  out  of 
public  office. 

The  Communist  Party  of  Washington  and  Maryland  put  out  a  directive  to  all 
members  of  the  Communist  Party  under  the  heading,  "Unity  Can  Defeat  Mc- 
Carthyism." This  directive  was  signed  by  Philip  Frankfeld  (who  has  since 
been  jailed).  It  contains  the  following  order  to  Communist  Party  members: 
"Remember  the  fact  that  the  main  enemy  is  McCarthyism  and  all  of  its  work- 
ings and  direct  your  main  fight  against  it." 

All  of  the  above  objectives  of  the  Communist  Party  have  been  adopted  by 
William  Benton  as  his  objectives  also.  You  must  agree  that  the  aims  and  ob- 
jectives of  both  the  Communist  Party  and  Benton  are  identical  insofar  as  Mc- 
Carthy is  concerned.  The  only  question  is  whether  it  is  knowingly  or  through 
stupidity  that  Benton  is  trying  to  perform  what  the  Communist  Party  has  of- 
ficially and  repeatedly  proclaimed  its  No.  1  task. 

Lenin  once  said,  "We  can  and  must  write  in  a  language  which  sows  among 
the  masses  hate,  revulsion,  scorn,  and  tiie  like  toward  those  who  disagree  with 

us." 

I  am  sure  that  you  would  never  knowingly  allow  your  committee  to  serve 
the  Communist  cause.  However,  the  damage  ddne  is  the  same  regardless  of 
whether  it  is  knowingly  and  deliberately  done.  There  can  be  no  question  in 
your  mind  or  in  anyone's  mind  that  this  year-long  investigation  by  your  sub- 
committee would  never  have  l)een  commenced  if  I  had  not  been  exposing  Com- 
munists in  Government.  Already  10  of  those  whom  I  have  exposed  have  either 
been  convicted  or  i-emoved  under  the  loyalty  program.  This  is  only  a  small 
indication  of  how  badly  the  Communist  Party  is  being  hurt.  The  Commu- 
nists will  have  scored  a  great  victory  if  they  can  convince  every  other  Sen- 
ator or  Congressman  that  if  ho  attempts  to  exiwse  undercover  Communists,  he 
will  be  subjected  to  the  same  type  of  intense  smear,  even  to  the  extent  of  using 
a  Senate  committee  for  the  purpose.  They  will  have  frightened  away  from  this 
fight  a  vast  number  of  legislators  who  fear  the  political  effect  of  being  inundated 
by  the  Communist  Party  line  sewage. 

If  you  have  evidence  of  wrongdoing  on  McCarthy's  part,  which  would  justify 
removal  from  the  Senate  or  a  vote  of  censure  by  the  Senate,  certainly  you  have 
the  obligation  to  produce  it.  However,  as  you  well  know,  every  member  of  your 
committee  and  staff  privately  admits  that  no  such  evidence  is  in  existence.  It  is 
an  evil  and  dishonest  thing  for  the  subcommittee  to  allow  itself  to  be  used  for 
an  evil  purpose.  Certainly  the  fact  that  the  Democrat  Party  may  temporarily 
benefit  thereby  is  insufficient  justification.  Remember  the  Communist  Party  will 
benefit  infinitely  more. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  35 

Exhibit  No.  19  is  a  letter  from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Gil- 
lette, dated  May  8, 1952,  and  I  will  read  it,  Mr.  Chairman : 

Senator  Gut  M.  Gillette, 

Chairman,  Suhcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections, 
United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  G. 

Dear  Senator  Gillette  :  I  understand  that  your  subcommittee  has  decided  to 
commence  holding  open  hearings  Monday  on  Benton's  resolution  to  expel  Mc- 
Carthy from  the  Senate  because  of  his  fight  to  expose  Communists  in  the  Demo- 
crat administration.  I  further  understand  that  you  have  taken  no  action  whatso- 
ever on  the  resolution  to  investigate  Benton. 

Before  I  urged  the  Senate  to  vote  to  continue  the  life  of  your  subcommittee 
vre  received  your  unqualified  promise  to  proceed  to  investigate  the  Benton  case 
just  as  expeditiously  as  the  attempted  expulsion  of  McCarthy.  I  now  understand 
that  you  have  not  even  so  much  as  suggested  that  the  resolution  asking  for  an 
investigation  of  Benton's  activities  be  referred  to  your  subcommittee;  that  noth- 
ing whatsoever  has  been  done  in  the  Benton  case,  although  weeks  have  passed 
since  that  resolution  was  introduced,  and  you  made  that  promise  on  the  Senate 
floor.  I  understand  you  excuse  your  actions  to  the  press  by  stating  that  the  Rules 
Committee  had  not  referred  the  Benton  case  to  you. 

You  and  Benton  are  members  of  the  Rules  Committee,  and,  as  you  well  know, 
the  Democrats  have  the  majority  of  the  votes  on  that  committee  and  can  stall 
the  Benton  case  indefinitely  without  referring  it  to  your  subcommittee.  I  am  sure 
you  will  agree  that  this  is  a  most  dishonest  evasion  of  a  promise  made  to  and 
relied  upon  by  the  Senate. 

In  view  of  the  amount  of  time  and  money  spent  investigating  McCarthy,  this 
stalling  in  the  Benton  case  cannot  help  but  more  firmly  convince  the  American 
people  that  your  subcommittee  is  being  dishonestly  used  as  an  arm  of  the  Demo- 
crat National  Committee. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCartht. 

The  Chairman.  At  this  point,  the  committee  will  recess  until — ■ — 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.    Senator  Johnson. 

Senator  Johnson.  In  just  a  minute,  I  desire  to  make  a  very  brief 
statement. 

The  Chairman.  Order,  please.  Photographers,  please  keep  your 
cameras  quiet  and  do  not  use  them.  Sit  down  and  be  quiet  until  we 
recess. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman,  on  yesterday  evening  Senator 
McCarthy  and  his  attorney,  Mr.  Williams,  called  the  attention  of  this 
committee  to  a  published  article  in  the  Denver  Post  on  March  12, 
1954,  in  which  an  interview  by  telephone  with  me  was  stated  or  was 
used,  and  I  desire  to  make  a  brief  statement  with  respect  to  that 
publication. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed.  Senator. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  did  not  say  on  March  12,  or  at 
any  other  time,  that  I  personally  loathed  Senator  Joseph  McCarthy. 
In  response  to  a  telephone  call  from  Denver,  I  agreed  that  some  of  my 
Democratic  colleagues  did  not  like  Senator  McCarthy.  My  March  12 
statement,  as  ])ublished,  did  not  say  that  I  personally  loathed  Senator 
McCarthy.  The  Flanders  speech  on  the  Senate  floor,  which  was  the 
forerunner  of  my  March  12  statement,  pertained  to  the  question 
whether  or  not  Senator  McCarthy  be  removed  from  the  chairmanship 
of  a  Senate  committee. 

My  position  then  and  now  is  that  that  matter  should  be  decided  by 
the  majority  party  in  charge  of  the  organization  of  the  Senate  and 
that  it  was  not  the  business  of  the  Senate  Democratic  Party  at  all. 
I  have  full  faith  in  my  ability  to  weigh  the  charges  which  have  been 


36  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

made  against  Senator  McCarthy,  together  with  ^Yhatever  evidence 
may  be  presented  without  prejudice. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  yon,  Senator. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stennis. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  say  that  I  think  the 
ruling  of  the  Chair  was  correct,  a  while  ago,  with  reference  to  the 
oral  argument  by  Mr.  Williams. 

I  think  the  request  of  the  Chair  that  he  file  a  written  brief  would 
be  very  helpful  in  this  case  to  the  members  of  the  committee  and  to 
the  Members  of  the  Senate. 

Ordinarily,  in  a  court  of  law,  the  declaration  or  the  bill  of  com- 
plaint sets  out  the  facts,  and  we  have  the  facts  before  us ;  but  in  this 
case,  there  is  no  formal  bill  of  complaint,  no  formal  declaration,  so  I 
think  it  is  necessary  to  first  get  the  facts.  It  is  said  that  out  of  the 
facts  the  sound  law  arises. 

Now,  after  all  these  facts  are  in  and  the  brief  submitted — and  I  have 
made  a  note  here  of  the  three  cases  cited  from  the  Supreme  Court — it 
might  be  that  some  might  want  to  hear  oral  argument  on  those  cases. 

I  would  like  to  reserve  that  point  now,  because  I  want  to  go  into 
it  in  the  brief. 

But,  first,  I  think  the  Chair  is  eminently  correct.  We  must  develop 
these  facts. 

Mr.  AViLLiAMS.  I  might  say  to  the  Chair  that  overnight  I  shall  pre- 
pare a  brief,  and  I  shall  submit  it  in  form  so  that  each  member  of  the 
committee  shall  have  a  copy  of  it,  in  an  effort  to  comport  with  the 
Chair's  ruling. 

I  shall  also  hope  that  the  Chair,  in  its  wisdom,  will  see  fit,  after 
consultation  with  the  other  members,  to  permit  me  a  specified  amount 
of  time  to  make  such  additional  points  as  I  wish. 

I  would  like  also  to  say  at  this  time,  if  I  may,  sir,  that  the  record 
might  be  straight  in  open  hearings,  I  think  it  should  be  stated  at  this 
time  that  at  no  time  has  either  Senator  McCarthy  or  myself  challenged 
Senator  Johnson's  qualifications  to  sit  on  this  committee. 

What  we  did  was  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  a  matter 
that  was  called  to  our  attention  exactly  5  minutes  before  we  brought 
it  to  the  committee.  I  felt  that  as  counsel  to  Senator  McCarthy,  and 
as  counsel  serving  before  this  committee,  I  should  be  derelict  in  my 
duty  if  I  did  not  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  something 
upon  which  the  committee  might  want  to  take  action. 

Now,  I  do  not  know  whether  the  Chair  desires  to  have  read  into  the 
record  what  I  called  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  or  not.  It  seems 
to  me  it  would  be  appropriate  to  have  it  there  so  that  Senator  John- 
son's remarks  might  be  viewed  in  proper  context. 

What  I  did  call 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  this  hearing.  No- 
body has  challenged  Senator  Johnson.  He  was  appointed  by  the 
Senate,  and  this  committee  has  no  authority  to  remove  him  or  even  to 
accept  a  resignation  of  his  from  the  committee. 

Since  that  is  the  record,  why  is  it  necessary  to  clutter  it  up  with  a 
lot  of  extraneous  matter?  I  rule  that  we  will  not  follow  that  sug- 
gestion. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  only  thing  we  had  hoped  for,  Mr.  Chairman, 
was  this :  At  least — maybe  I  am  in  error — but  I  was  led  to  believe  as  I 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  37 

left  the  executive  session  last  nigiit — I  do  not  know  whether  Senator 
McCarthy  shares  my  understanding  or  not — but  I  was  led  to  believe 
that  Senator  Johnson  was  going  to  call  the  editor  who  bylined  this 
story,  and  either  confirm  or  deny  the  reported  contents  thereof. 

The  Chairman.  If  it  is  immaterial  to  this  hearing,  what  differ- 
ence does  it  make  whether  he  called  him  or  did  not  call  him  ?  I  do  not 
think  it  makes  any  difference  whatsoever.  We  are  not  trying  Senator 
Johnson ;  no  accusations  have  been  made  against  him,  no  challenge  has 
been  macle  as  to  him. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  desisted  from  making 
any  comments,  so  far,  and  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question,  if  I  may. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Senator.  Let  us  get  this  clear :  I 
think  the  fair  interpretation  of  the  rule  is  that  when  your  counsel 
speaks  on  a  matter,  that  precludes  you  from  addressing  the  Chair  of 
the  committee  on  the  same  matter.  If  you  want  to  take  it  over  your- 
self, why  then,  you  start  it,  and  then  we"^  will  let  you  finish  it.  But  we 
are  not  going  to  permit  both  of  you  to  argue  this  matter. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Just  a  minute,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  1  minute. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator  ]\IcCarthy  is  really  extending  a  thought 
that  I  had,  and  that  I  had  suggested  to  the  Chair. 

I  had  come  away  from  the  hearing  yesterday,  feeling  that  we  were 
going  to  get  a  statement  from  Senator  Johnson  either  affirming  or 
denying  the  story  which  is  reported  in  the  March  12  Denver  Post. 
Now,  I'was  not  idly  curious  on  that  subject.  Senator.  I  felt  that  I 
needed  that  information  in  order  to  intelligently  advise  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy as  to  what  position  he  should  take  witli  respect  to  this  matter. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  say  to  you,  Mr.  Williams,  that  Senator 
Johnson,  if  he  was  able  to  make  that  telephone  communication,  will  tell 
you  privately  what  was  the  result  of  the  conversation.  But  I  cannot 
see  why  it  has  anything  to  do  with  this  matter.  There  is  no  challenge. 
We  have  not  any  authority  over  Senator  Johnson. 

Mr.  Willia:\ls.  I  do  not  have  information  enough  at  this  time,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  make  a  challenge.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  should 
advise  Senator  McCarthy  to  make  a  challenge  or  not,  because  I  do  not 
know  yet  whether  or  not  the  reported  statements  in  the  Denver  Post 
are  true  or  are  untrue,  and  I  have  relied  upon  the  representations  made 
in  executive  session  as  to  the  source  for  my  information  on  that  subject 
today. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  say  that  the  Chair  has  already  ruled  on 
this  matter  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  committee.  We  have  no 
authority  to  change  the  personnel.  We  could  not — it  is  not  maerial 
to  our  investigation. 

The  personnel  have  been  selected ;  members  of  this  committee  have 
been  selected  by  the  Senate  itself,  and  this  committee  certainly  has  no 
authority  under  the  order  set  up  under  the  Resolution  301  to  remove 
any  of  its  members,  to  consider  any  challenge  to  its  membership. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  that  I  miglit  understand  the  ruling  of  the  Chair, 
it  is  that  we  are  not  entitled  to  the  information  as  to  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  the  statements  of  March  12  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  sav  you  are  entitled  to  it  if  vou  wish  to  get  it  from 
Senator  Johnson,  but  I  say  that  it  is  not  material  to  this  hearing  and 
for  that  reason  I  am  not  going  to  permit,  or  should  not  permit  colloquy 
to  go  on  back  and  forth. 


38  HEARENGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Senator  Johnson  has  made  his  statement,  and  that  is  it,  and  you 
have  made  your  statement. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman — — 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  It  occurs  to  me  that  all  of  this  discussion  is  immaterial 
to  the  purposes  of  the  inquiry,  for  the  record  of  this  inquiry. 

Senator  Carlson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  be  in  a  position 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Carlson. 

Senator  Carlson.  I  confirm  Senator  Case's  remarks,  so  far  as  this 
particular  record  is  concerned. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  one  ques- 
tion. Are  we  entitled  to  know  whether  or  not  the  quotations  of 
March  12  are  correct  or  incorrect? 

I  would  like  to  know  whether  the  Denver  Post 

The  Chairman.  You  may  get  it,  Senator,  and  I  am  going  to  rule 
on  this,  and  I  have  already  ruled,  you  may  get  that  some  other  place. 
But  this  committee  has  no  jurisdiction  over  those  matters,  whatso- 
ever. This  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Senate ;  the  only  condi- 
tion laid  down  was  that  there  would  be  3  Democrats  and  3  Republi- 
cans, and  here  we  are,  3  Republicans  and  3  Democrats,  and  this  com- 
mittee is  not  going  to  take  on  the  job  of  the  Senate  and  going  to  decide 
whether  this  committee  is  a  proper  committee  or  not.  This  com- 
mittee is 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  Senator.  You  have  filed  no  chal- 
lenge; and,  in  the  first  place,  I  believe  it  is  improper  for  you  to  do 
so,  because  we  have  not  unj  jurisdiction. 

Senator  ]\IcCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  be  entitled  to  know 
whether  or  not — — 

The  Chairman,  The  Senator  is  out  of  order. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Can't  I  get  Mr.  Johnson  to  tell  me 

The  Chairman.  The  Senator  is  out  of  order. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Whether  it  is  true  or"  false  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  Senator  is  out  of  order.  You  can  go  to  the 
Senator  and  question  and  find  out.  That  is  not  for  this  committee 
to  consider.  We  are  not  going  to  be  interrupted  by  these  diversions 
and  sidelines.     We  are  going  straight  down  the  line. 

The  committee  will  be  in  recess. 

I  had  announced  previously  that  the  committee  would  recess  until 
10  o'clock  tomorrow  morning,  and  that  is  the  order. 

(Whereupon,  at  12 :  25  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  to  reconvene 
Wednesday,  September  1, 1954,  at  10  a.  m.) 


HEAEINGS  ON  SENATE  EESOLUTION  301 


wednesday,  september  1,  1954 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges 
Pursuant  to  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

Washington^  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  10 :  10  a.  m.,  in  the 
caucus  room,  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Arthur  V.  Watkins 
(chajrman)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (presiding),  Johnson  of  Colorado  (vice 
chairman),  Stennis,  Carlson,  Case,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel 
to  the  committee ;  Guy  G.  cle  Furia,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee ; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee ;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  mem- 
ber; Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator 
Watkins'  staff  on  loan  to  the  committee;  and  Edward  Bennett  Wil- 
liams, counsel  to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A. 
Neill  and  Brent  Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  with  extreme  regret  and  deep  sorrow  that  we 
received  today  the  news  of  the  death  of  Senator  Maybank,  the  dis- 
tinguished Senator  from  South  Carolina.  He  was  greatly  beloved  in 
the  Senate.  He  had  been  there  for  a  long  time,  had  splendid  seniority. 
We  are  going  to  miss  him. 

His  State  lost  a  great  man,  and  the  Nation  a  fine  public  servant. 

By  reason  of  the  fact  that  this  hearing  had  already  been  set  up  it 
would  be  very  inconvenient  to  postpone  it,  and  the  committee  felt 
that  it  should  proceed  with  the  hearings  as  scheduled.  However,  at 
least  two  members  of  the  committee  will  be  appointed  to  attend  the 
funeral  when  the  date  is  announced. 

As  a  mark  of  respect  the  committee  will  all  stand,  and  we  would 
like  you  to  stand  with  us  for  one  ^moment  in  silence,  as  a  mark  of 
respect  to  Senator  Maj^bank. 

(The  committee  and  the  audience  stood  in  silence.) 

The  Chairman.  You  may  be  seated. 

I  would  like  to  ask  at  the  outset  of  this  hearing  today,  are  the  micro- 
phones and  the  amplification  system  working  sufficiently  well  so  that 
you  can  hear  in  the  rear  of  the  room  ? 

(The  response  w\as  ''Yes.") 

The  Chairman.  The  officers  at  the  end  of  the  room  indicated  that 
they  are  working.  We  did  not  know  until  the  latter  part  of  the  hear- 
ing yesterday  that  they  were  not  working.    We  regret  that  very  much. 

At  the  close  of  yesterday's  session  a  question  had  been  raised,  which 
the  Chair  ruled  on,  and,  in  amplification  of  what  was  said  then,  I  think, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  country,  I  should  at  least  expand 
the  statement  and  the  ruling  that  I  made. 

39 


40  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  question  was  raised  with  respect  to  the  qualifications  of  Senator 
Johnson  of  Colorado  to  sit  as  a  member  of  this  committee.  The  ruling 
was  that  he  was  appointed  by  the  Senate  itself;  this  committee  had 
no  power  to  remove  him ;  and  there  had  been  no  challenge  filed  against 
him ;  and  even  if  there  had  been,  this  committee  was  powerless  to  act 
in  the  matter. 

In  addition  to  that,  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  connnittee  has  heard  from  Senator  Johnson — his  statement  that 
was  made  yesterday  in  open  session.  The  committee  is  satisfied  that 
Senator  Johnson  can  do  exactly  what  he  said  he  could  do,  that  is, 
to  try  this  matter  fairly  and  consider  the  evidence  that  is  brought 
before  it. 

The  Constitution  of  this  country  provided  for  a  House  and  a  Senate, 
our  supreme  legislative  bodies. 

In  doing  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  said  this  in  section  5 
of  article  1 : 

Each  House  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualifieations  of 
its  own  Members  and  a  majority  of  each  sliall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  busi- 
ness, but  a  smaller  number  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day. 

Some  parts  of  the  section  are  not  apropos  of  what  I  am  going  to 
say,  so  I  will  not  read  them. 

The  following  paragraph  states : 

Each  House  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  punish  its  INIembers 
for  disorderly  behavior,  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  expel  a  Member. 

The  foregoing  language  has  been  construed  to  give  to  each  House 
of  Congress  the  power  to  discipline  its  own  Members  and  to  determine 
the  rules  of  its  proceedings.  It  has  in  the  past  rejected  Members  who 
have  come  with  credentials  from  a  State  and  have  done  so  for  various 
reasons  which  seemed  to  be  sufficient  to  the  Senate. 

It  has,  as  I  recall,  expelled  Members. 

It  has  also  passed  resolutions  of  censure. 

It  is  the  only  body  that  can  discipline  a  IMember  for  matters  that 
occur  in  the  Senate,  or  of  his  activities,  and  can  take  notice  of  what  a 
Senator  is  doing.  Courts  cannot  do  it — no  one  else  can  do  it  but  the 
Senate. 

The  Senate  has  to  act  as  a  body  in  the  final  stages  of  any  proceed- 
ing or  series  of  proceedings  which  have  to  do  with  the  discipline  or 
the  punishment  of  any  of  its  Members  for  misconduct. 

No  matter  what  position  a  Senator  may  have  taken  with  respect  to 
any  of  these  matters  of  expulsion,  rejection  or  discipline,  he  is  en- 
titled to  vote  on  that  matter.  No  one  can  disqualify  him.  Even  if  all 
the  Senators  had  taken  a  strong  position,  saying  with  reference  to 
Senator  X — let  us  make  it  impersonal^ — ^if  all  of  them  said  that  Sena- 
tor X  was  a  disgrace  to  the  Senate,  that  he  had  done  things  which  were 
im])roper,  and  he  ought  to  be  disciplined.  Senator  X  coidd  not  success- 
fully challenge  any  one  of  those  Senators  from  sitting  and  acting  on 
his  case.  If  he  could,  if  he  could  disqualify  him  for  that  reason,  then 
there  would  be  no  action  by  the  Senate,  because  all  of  them  except 
the  Senator  himself  would  be  disqualified. 

Suppose  the  Senate  was  divided  evenly  on  a  matter  involving  Sena- 
tor X.  Then  those  who  had  taken  a  strong  position  for  Senator  X, 
if  we  are  goiug  to  invoke  a  rule  of  complete  impartiality  and  com- 
plete neutrality,  all  of  those  Avho  were  strongly  for  him  would  be 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  41 

disqualified,  and  all  of  those  who  had  spoken  against  him  would  be 
disqualified,  and  again  the  Senate  would  be  impotent,  completely 
powerless  to  do  the  thing  the  Constitution  says  that  it  should  do. 

Now,  a  committee  is  only  an  arm,  an  agency  of  the  parent  body, 
the  Senate.  None  of  the  six  Senators  sitting  here  on  this  committee 
can  make  any  final  judgment  in  the  proceedings  of  this  committee 
on  the  matter  now  before  it. 

I  pointed  out,  I  hoped  in  a  clear  way  yesterday,  that  this  com- 
mittee had  taken  a  position  that,  in  accordance  with  the  order  which 
was  issued  that  it  was  to  take  such  testimony  as  it  deems  advisable, 
that  it  had  concluded  that  that  meant  that  it  was  to  receive,  ferret 
out,  and  search  for  all  evidence  that  has  anything  to  do  with  or  is 
relevant  and  material  to  the  charges  now  before  this  committee  and  the 
Senate,  not  to  eject  any  parties  aside  on  the  matter,  but  to  ferret  it  all 
out. 

It  is  a  fact-finding  body.  In  order  to  accomplish  that,  we  have  to  do 
a  lot  of  preliminary  work.  We  have  staff  people,  investigators.  They 
go  out  and  search  for  evidence,  because  if  they  did  not,  the  Senate 
would  have  to  do  it  somewhere  along  the  line,  and  that  is  the  only  way 
the  Senate  can  act. 

Ninety-six  Senators  could  not  sit  in  a  body  and  do  that,  as  a  prac- 
tical matter,  not  within  the  time  limit  in  the  resolution,  I  am  sure. 
So*  they  have  delegated  this  committee  to  take  this  testimony,  to  get 
it,  and  it  is  our  purpose,  as  was  announced,  to  get  the  testimony 
whether  it  favors  Senator  McCarthy  or  whether  it  is  against  him  or 
whether  it  is  just  in  between,  as  long  as  it  is  relevant  and  material. 

Now,  that  being  the  situation,  and  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
fact  that  we  cannot  make  any  final  judgment,  I  cannot  see  how  any 
legal  contention  of  any  shape  or  form  can  be  made  against  any  member 
of  this  committee  that  could  be  maintained  as  a  matter  of  law  or  as  a 
matter  of  fact. 

Men  in  the  profession  of  law  are  trained  to  take  an  objective  point  of 
view.  They  sympathize  with  the  man  they  defend  in  court,  who  may 
be  charged  with  some  vicious  crime,  and  yet  a  law^yer  would  go  all  out, 
although  he  may  have  horrors  of  the  crime,  and  he  will  do  his  level 
best  to  see  that  that  man  has  his  rights. 

You  have  three  members  of  this  committee  wdio  are  lawyers  and 
who  have  served  as  judges. 

Now,  that  is  our  purpose.  And  the  other  members  of  this  com- 
mittee are  all  men  of  experience.  In  fact,  I  did  not  know  until  some 
time  back  that  some  of  the  others  were  not  lawyers.  They  have  had 
enough  experience  here  to  know  how  these  matters  are  handled. 

The  public  at  large,  many  of  them,  at  least,  do  not  seem  to  under- 
stand that  we  do  not  render  any  final  decision.  We  do  not  find  the 
accused  innocent  or  guilty.  We  get  the  facts  and  try  to  get  them  all ; 
we  get  the  arguments  on  the  law  and  try  to  get  them  all,  and  have  them 
briefed  for  us,  and  then  we  report  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  the  final  court,  and  I  submit  that  any  man  who  cannot  be 
disqualified  from  sitting  on  that  court  certainly  cannot  be  disqualified 
from  sitting  on  the  committee  that  merely  searches  for  the  evidence. 

I  want  to  make  that  clear.  I  do  not  know  if  any  member  of  the 
committee  has  any  desire  to  make  comment  on  it.  I  shall  be  glad  to 
hear  from  them  if  they  do. 

Apparently,  no  comment  is  to  be  made. 


42  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

I  think  I  might  say  without  the  denial  or  any  fear  of  contradiction 
that  the  committee  is  unanimous  on  this  matter. 

In  addition  to  what  I  have  said — I  should  say  this— the  Senate 
created  the  committee,  appointed  us,  and  we  can  find  nowhere  in  our 
appointment,  our  source  of  authority,  the  directive  of  what  w^e  are  to 
do,  any  place  where  we  should  pass  on  the  qualifications  of  the  com- 
mittee. That  was  done  by  a  higher  body,  and  it  would  be  presump- 
tuous on  our  part  to  attempt  to  do  any  such  thing. 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  have  invited  a  comment.  I  would  like  to  say 
that  I  approve  100  percent  what  you  have  said.  It  is  apparent  that 
if  the  right  of  a  Senator  to  discharge  a  senatorial  function  can  be 
successfully  challenged,  then  the  ability  of  the  Senate  to  function 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  would  be  paralyzed  in 
many  cases. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  committee  has  made  the  ruling.  We 
think  the  matter  is  not  pertinent  or  relevant  to  this  case,  so  we  will 
go  ahead  with  the  testimony  and  call  upon  our  counsel  to  read  the 
minutes. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  W^illiams.  So  that  our  legal  position  in  this  matter  might  be 
preserved,  overnight  I  have  prepared  a  memorandum  stating  our 
position  I  think  simply  and  clearly,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  the 
Chair  that  this  memorandum  be  incorporated  in  the  record  of  these 
proceedings  so  that  it  will  be  there  present  for  the  Senate  to  con- 
sider at  the  appropriate  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  the  entire  letter  just  as  you  wrote  it 
put  in  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  interested  in  having  the  memorandum  in  the 
record,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Personally,  I  have  no  objection  to  that.  I  think 
the  whole  matter  has  been  immaterial  and  irrelevant  to  these  pro- 
ceedings. I  think  we  should  proceed  to  carry  out  the  directive  given 
us  by  the  Senate. 

At  this  moment  I  think,  since  this  involves  the  whole  committee 
and  one  member  of  the  committee  specifically,  that  I  shall  reserve 
the  ruling  until  a  later  moment,  until  I  can  confer  with  my  colleagues. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear, 
sir,  that  I  am  not  seeking  opportunity  to  argue  this  matter  orally. 
All  I  want  is  to  have  our  position  preserved  in  the  record  so  that 
these  proceedings  will  completely  be  recorded  therein.  I  just  want 
our  position  preserved  in  the  record  by  an  inclusion  of  this  memo- 
randum. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Cil'lirman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  I  had  an  opportunity  to  read  the  statement  very 
briefly  just  before  coming  to  the  meeting.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
position  of  the  counsel  might  be  preserved  without  necessarily  putting 
that  statement  in  the  record. 

The  statement  as  I  read  it  makes  certain  statements  of  fact  which 
may  or  may  not  be  provable.     I  don't  know;  they  may  be,  but  it 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  43 

seems  to  me  before  we  agree  to  insert  the  statement  in  the  record, 
that  it  should  be  examined  and  studied  with  that  thought  in  mind. 

The  position  of  counsel  that  they  wish  to  preserve  the  right  is 
already  spoken  for  the  record,  and  I  see  no  objection  to  that,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  statement  which  incorporates  allegations  that, 
if  true,  should  perhaps  be  submitted  with  proof  or  under  oath  or 
it  ought  not  to  be  put  in  until  we  have  a  chance  to  study  it. 

The  CiiAiRMAX.  I  think  that  the  whole  matter  should  be  studied, 
because  the  Chair  has  already  ruled  against  the  offer  to  place  in  the 
record  the  newspaper  clipping  referred  to. 

As  I  remember,  this  memorandum  restates  it,  and  I  haven't  any 
reason  for,  at  the  moment,  changing  my  ruling  on  the  clipping  that 
was  offered.     We  will  proceed  with  the  hearing. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  I  understand  the  Chair  has  reserved  ruling  on 
that  point? 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  statement  I  made, 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  resuming  the  presentation  of  docu- 
mentary evidence  in  tlie  form  of  the  exhibits  read  from  the  record 
of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  to  the  Committee 
on  Rules  and  Administration  under  Senate  Resolution  187  and  Senate 
Resolution  304,  I  refer  to  the  exhibit  No.  20,  which  contains  the  word 
"copy"  in  parentheses,  which  is  dated  May  10,  1952,  which  is  a  letter 
from  Senator  Gillette  to  Senator  McCarthy,  which  I  now  read: 

My  Dear  Senator  McCarthy  :  I  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  May  8 
which  was  written  in  response  to  a  letter  addressed  to  you  by  me  as  chairman 
of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  under  date  of  May  7.  Your 
reply  of  the  8th  states  factual  matter  in  connection  with  the  charges  made  by 
Senator  Benton  in  his  resolution  and  which  have  been  listed  as  "charge  No.  2." 

You  will  note  from  my  letter  of  the  7th  that  I  stated  in  the  concluding  para- 
graph "I  shall  extend  to  you  the  opportunity  to  appear  at  the  hearings  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  testimony  relating  to  this  charge.  The  hearing  in  this 
case  will  probably  continue  for  several  days  and  we  shall  make  whatever  arrange- 
ments for  your  appearance  are  most  convenient  for  you." 

The  subcommittee,  in  determining  its  further  action  relative  to  the  Benton 
resolution,  decided  to  take  up  the  charges  one  by  one  and,  if  additional  evidence 
was  desired  in  addition  to  the  staff  report  that  was  before  us,  that  the  sub- 
committee would  undertake  to  develop  further  testimony  where  it  seemed 
desirable  to  do  so.  At  their  meeting  on  May  7  the  subcommittee  concluded  that 
they  wished  to  take  some  additional  testimony  with  reference  to  charge  No.  2 
and  fixed  next  Monday,  May  12,  as  the  date  for  the  hearing,  at  which  witnesses 
under  them  could  be  heard. 

It  seemed  the  courteous  thing  to  do  to  invite  you  to  attend  so  you  could  have 
full  opportunity  to  present  additional  evid^ence  or,  at  a  later  period,  to  present 
any  evidence  you  might  wish  to  make  available  to  us  in  refutation  or  explana- 
tion of  any  evidence  which  you  adduced  at  the  hearing.  That  was  the  purpose 
of  my  letter  to  you  and  you  were  assured  that  the  opportunity  will  continue  to 
be  yours  to  present  such  matter  as  you  wish  to  present  to  us  in  connection  with 
this  hearing  and  to  attend,  if  you  desire  to  do  so. 

I  assume  also  that  you  would  have  no  objection  to  having  put  in  the  record 
of  the  hearings  your  letter  of  the  8th.  Unless  I  receive  the  request  from  you 
for  me  not  to  do  so  when  the  hearings  are  opened  next  Monday,  I  shall  put  in 
the  record  my  letter  of  the  7th  addressed  to  you  and  your  reply  of  the  8th 
addressed  to  me. 

With  personal  greetings,  I  am 
Sincerely, 

Guy  M.  Gillette. 

And  initials. 

The  next  is  exhibit  21,  which  is  a  letter  dated  May  11,  1952,  signed 
by  Senator  McCarthy,  and  addressed  to  Senator  Guy  Gillette,  Senator 
A.  S.  Monroney,  and  Senator  Thomas  Hennings. 

62461—54 4 


44  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Gentlemen  :  I  havf  learned  with  regret  that  your  public  hearings  are  to  open 
tomorrow  without  the  presence  of  your  star  witness.  You  have  my  deepest 
sympathy. 

Some  doubting  Thomases  might  question  the  importance  of  this  witness,  ex- 
cept that  after  nearly  a  year  of  investigating,  you  and  your  staff  decided  that 
the  public  hearings  must  open  with  his  intelligently  presented,  clear-cut  expose 
of  the  dangers  of  McCarthyism.  The  Nation  owes  you  a  debt  of  gratitude  for 
so  carefully  and  honestly  developing  this  witness  who  could  have  advised  the 
Senate  and  the  voters  of  Wisconsin  to  get  rid  of  McCarthy.  If  only  you  had 
set  the  hearings  10  days  earlier  before  the  judge  committed  your  star  witness 
to  an  institution  for  the  criminally  insane,  you  would  not  have  been  deprived 
of  this  important  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  against  McCarthy. 

Some  shallow  thinkers  may  say  that  you  gentlemen  are  dishonest  to  have 
planned  to  use  your  committee  as  a  soiuiding  board  to  headline  the  statements 
of  a  Wiitness  after  your  staff  had  reported  he  was  mentally  unbalanced.  I  beg 
you  not  to  let  this  distract  you  from  the  honest,  gentlemanly  job  you  are  doing. 
Those  critics  fail  to  realize  that  everything  is  ethical  and  honest  if  it  is  done 
to  expose  the  awfulness  of  McCarthyism.  After  all,  had  not  your  staff  reported 
that  while  this  witness  was  mentally  deranged,  his  mental  condition  would  help 
to  make  him  an  excellent  witness  for  you. 

Certainly,  you  cannot  be  blamed  for  not  knowing  that  some  unthinking  judge 
woiild  do  the  country  the  great  disservice  of  commiting  him  to  a  home  for  the 
insane  before  the  committee  had  a  chance  to  publicize  and  place  its  stamp  of 
approval  on  his  statments  about  McCarthy.  Certainly,  you  cannot  be  blamed 
for  being  unable  to  distinguish  between  his  testimony  and  the  testimony  of 
the  other  witness,  Benton,  who  asked  for  and  was  given  the  right  to  appear 
before  your  committee  and  publicly  "expose"  McCarthy. 

The  Communist  Party,  which  is  also  doing  an  excellent  job  of  exposing  the 
evils  of  ^McCarthyism,  has  repeatedly  proclaimed  that  no  stone  be  left  unturned 
in  the  effort  to  remove  McCarthy  from  public  life.  As  Lenin  said,  "resort  to 
lies,  trickery,  deceit,  and  dishonesty  of  any  type  necessary,"  in  order  to  destroy 
those  who  stand  in  the  way  of  the  Communist  movement. 

I  ask  you  gentlemen  not  to  be  disturbed  by  those  who  point  out  that  your 
committee  is  trying  to  do  what  the  Communist  Party  has  ofBcially  proclaimed 
as  its  No.  1  task.  You  ju.st  keep  right  on  in  the  same  honest,  painstaking  way 
of  developing  the  truth.  The  thinking  people  of  this  Nation  will  not  be  deceived 
by  those  who  claim  that  what  you  are  doing  is  dishonest.  After  all,  you  must 
serve  the  interests  of  the  Democrat  Party — there  is  always  the  chance  that 
the  country  may  be  able  to  survive.  What  better  way  could  you  find  to  spend 
the  taxpayers'  money?  After  all,  isn't  McCarthy  doing  the  terribly  unpatriotic 
and  unethical  thing  of  proving  the  extent  to  which  the  Democrat  administration 
is  Communist  ridden?  Unless  he  can  be  discredited,  the  Democrat  Party  may  be 
removed  from  power. 

Again  may  I  offer  my  condolences  upon  your  failure  to  have  your  star  witness 
present  as  planned  to  open  the  testimony.     Do  you  not  think  the  judge  who 
committed  him  should  be  investigated? 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 

Tlie  next  exhibit  is  exliibit  No.  38  from  that  report,  contaiiiiiio;  the 
word  "copy"  in  brackets  at  the  liead.  It  is  dated  November  T,  1952, 
and  it  is  addressed  to  the  Honorable  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  United 
States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C  : 

Dear  Senator  McCarthy  :  In  connection  with  the  consideration  by  the  Sub- 
committee on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  Senate  Resolution  No.  187,  introduced 
by  Senator  Benton  on  August  6,  1951,  as  well  as  the  ensuing  investigation,  I 
have  been  instructed  by  the  subcommittee  to  invite  you  to  appear  before  said 
subcommittee  in  executive  session.  Insofar  as  possible,  we  would  like  to  respect 
your  wishes  as  to  the  date  on  which  you  will  appear.  However,  the  sul)committee 
plans  to  be  available,  for  this  purpose,  during  the  week  beginning  November  17, 
1952. 

It  will  be  appreciated  if  you  will  advise  me  at  as  early  a  date  as  possible  of 
the  day  you  will  appear,  in  order  that  the  subcommittee  may  arrange  its  plans 
accordingly. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Paul  J.  Cotter,  Chief  Counsel. 

PJC :  miv. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  45 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  No.  40,  a  photostat.  It  is  a  letter  from 
Ray  Kiermas,  administrative  assistant  to  Senator  McCarthy.  It  is 
addressed  to  Mr.  Panl  Cotter,  chief  counsel.  Subcommittee  on  Privi- 
leges and  Elections,  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C,  and 
reads  as  follows : 

Dear  Mr.  Cotter  :  Inasmuch  as  Senator  McCarthy  is  not  now  in  Washing- 
ton, I  am  taking  the  liberty  of  acknowledging  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
November  7. 

I  have  just  talked  to  the  Senator  over  the  telephone  and  he  does  not  know  just 
when  he  will  return  to  Washington.  It  presently  appears  that  he  will  not  be 
available  to  appear  before  your  committee  during  the  time  you  mention.  How- 
ever, he  did  state  that  if  you  will  let  him  know  just  what  information  you  desire, 
he  will  be  glad  to  try  to  be  of  help  to  you. 
Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     Ray  Kiermas, 
Adniinist7-ative  Assistant  to  Senator  McCarthy. 
RK/dl. 

The  letter  was  dated  November  10,  1952. 

The  next  exhibit  is  exhibit  No.  41,  a  letter  dated  November  21,  1952, 
to  the  Honorable  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  a  letter  from  Tomas  Hennings, 
Avith  quotations  from  several  letters.  It  is  difficult  to  quickly  pick  up 
the  conclusion  of  it.     The  letter  is  as  follows : 

Dear  Senator  McCarthy:  As  you  will  recall,  on  September  25,  1951,  May  7, 
1952,  and  May  10,  1952,  this  subcommittee  invited  you  to  appear  before  it  to  give 
testimony  relating  to  the  investigation  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution  187. 

Under  date  of  November  7,  1952,  the  following  communication  was  addressed 
to  you : 

"Dear  Senator  McCarthy:  In  connection  with  the  consideration  by  the  Sub- 
committee on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  Senate  Resolution  No.  187,  introduced 
by  Senator  Benton  on  August  6,  1951,  as  well  as  the  ensuing  investigation,  I 
have  been  instructed  by  the  subcommittee  to  invite  you  to  appear  before  .said 
subcommittee  in  executive  session.  Insofar  as  possible,  we  would  like  to  respect 
your  wishes  as  to  the  date  on  which  you  will  appear.  However,  the  subcommittee 
plans  to  be  available,  for  this  purpose,  during  the  week  beginning  November  17, 
1952. 

"It  will  be  appreciated  if  you  will  advise  me  at  as  early  a  date  as  possible  of 
the  day  you  will  appear,  in  order  that  the  subcommittee  may  arrange  its  plans 
accordingly. 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"Paul  J.  Cotter,  Chief  Counsel." 

On  November  14,  1952,  the  subcommittee  received  the  following  communica- 
tion, dated  November  10,  1952 : 

"Dear  Mr.  Cotter  :  Inasmuch  as  Senator  McCarthy  is  not  now  in  Washington, 
I  am  taking  the  liberty  of  acknowledging  receipt  of  your  letter  of  November  7. 

"I  have  just  talked  to  the  Senator  over  the  telephone  and  he  does  not  know 
just  when  he  will  return  to  Washington.  It  presently  appears  that  he  will  not 
be  available  to  appear  before  your  committee  during  the  time  you  mention. 
However,  he  did  state  that  if  you  will  let  him  know  just  what  information  you 
desire,  he  will  be  glad  to  try  to  be  of  help  to  you. 
"Sincerely  yours, 

"Ray  Kiermas, 
"Administrative  Assistant  to  Senator  McCarthy." 

The  subcommittee  is  grateful  for  your  offer  of  assistance,  and  we  want  to 
afford  you  with  every  opportunity  to  offer  your  explanations  with  reference  to 
the  issues  involved.  Therefore,  although  the  subcommittee  did  make  itself 
available  during  the  past  week  in  order  to  afford  you  an  opportunity  to  be  heard, 
we  shall  be  at  your  disposal  commencing  Saturday,  November  22  through,  but  not 
later  than,  Tuesday,  November  25,  1952. 

This  subcommittee  has  but  one  object,  and  that  is  to  reach  an  impartial  and 
proper  conclusion  based  upon  the  facts.  Your  appearance,  in  person,  before  the 
subcommittee  will  not  only  give  you  the  opportunity  to  testify  as  to  any  issues 
of  fact  which  may  be  in  controversy,  but  will  be  of  the  greatest  assistance  to  the 


46  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

subcommittee  in  its  effort  to  arrive  at  a  proper  determination  and  to  embody  in 
its  report  an  accurate  representation  of  tlie  facts. 

Pursuant  to  your  request,  as  transmitted  to  us  through  Mr.  Kiermas,  we  are 
advising  you  that  the  subcommittee  desires  to  make  inquiry  vpith  respect  to  the 
following  matters: 

(1)  Whether  any  funds  collected  or  received  by  you  and  by  others  on  your 
behalf  to  conduct  certain  of  your  activities,  including  those  relating  to  com- 
munism, were  ever  diverted  and  used  for  other  purposes  inuring  to  your  personal 
advantage. 

(2)  Whether  you,  at  any  time,  used  your  official  position  as  a  United  States 
Senator  and  as  a  member  of  the  Banking  and  Currency  Committee,  the  Joint 
Housing  Committee,  and  the  Senate  Investigations  Committee  to  obtain  a  $10,000 
fee  from  the  Lustron  Corp.,  which  company  was  then  almost  entirely  subsidized 
by  agencies  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  very  committees  of  which  you  were 
a  member. 

(3)  Whether  your  activities  on  behalf  of  certain  interest  groups,  such  as 
housing,  sugar,  and  China,  were  motivated  by  self-interest. 

(4)  Whether  your  activities  with  respect  to  your  senatorial  campaigns,  par- 
ticularly with  respect  to  the  reporting  of  your  financing  and  your  activities 
relating  to  the  financial  transactions  with  and  subsequent  employment  of  Ray 
Kiermas,  involved  violations  of  the  Federal  and  State  Corrupt  Practices  Acts. 

(5)  Whether  loan  or  other  transactions  which  you  had  with  the  Appleton 
State  Bank,  of  Appleton,  Wis.,  involved  violations  of  tax  and  banking  laws. 

(6)  Whether  you  used  close  associates  and  members  of  youi^  family  to  secrete 
receipts,  income,  commodity  and  stock  speculation,  and  other  financial  trans- 
actions for  ulterior  motives. 

We  again  assure  you  of  our  desire  to  give  you  the  opportunity  to  testify,  in 
executive  session  of  the  subcommittee,  as  to  the  foregoing  matters.  The  S2d 
Congress  expires  in  the  immediate  future  and  the  subcommittee  must  necessarily 
proceed  with  dispatch  in  making  its  I'eport  to  this  Congress.  To  that  end,  we 
respectfully  urge  you  to  arrange  to  come  before  us  on  or  before  November  25, 
and  thus  enable  us  to  do  our  conscientious  best  in  the  interests  of  the  Senate  and 
our  obligation  to  complete  our  work.  We  would  thank  you  to  advise  us  imme- 
diately, so  that  we  may  plan  accordingly. 

This  letter  is  being  transmitted  at  the  direction  and  with  the  full  concurrence 
of  the  membership  of  this  subcommittee. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Thomas  C.  Hennings,  Jr.,  Chairman. 

with  initials. 

The  date  of  the  letter  which  I  have  just  read  is  November  21,  1952. 

I  turn  aside  at  this  point  from  the  sequence  of  the  exhibits  quoted 
from  tlie  H-H-H  report — — 

The  Chairman.  And  when  you  say  "H-H-H  report,"  what  are  you 
referring  to,  Mr.  Chadwick  ? 

]Mr.  Chadwick.  I  refer  to  the  report  heretofore  mentioned,  the  re- 
port of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Rules  and  Administration  in  the  investigation  pursuant  to 
Senate  Resolution  187  and  Senate  Resolution  304. 

The  Chairman.  And  which  Congress  ? 

Mr.  Chad-\vick.  The  82d  Congress,  I  think. 

Tlie  Chairman.  And  what  does  tlie  "H-H-H"  stand  for? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  The  initials  of  the  three  members  of  the  subcom- 
mittee who  signed  the  report. 

The  Chairman.  Please  name  them. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Hennings,  Hayden,  and  Hendrickson. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  have  in  my  hand  an  original  telegram  addressed 
to  Senator  Joseph  McCarthy  which  was  produced  at  my  request  this 
morning  by  his  attorneys  and  delivered  pursuant  to  an  informal  call, 
and  I  understand — Mr.  Williams  is  listening — that  he  is  willing  to 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  47 

enter  into  a  stipulation  that  this  telegram  shall  be  read  into  evidence 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  speak  louder,  Mr,  Williams,  for  the 
record.  . 

Mr.  Williams.  My  microphone  is  dead,  Mr.  Chairman.  That  is 
why  you  can't  hear  me.  Yes,  I  have  agreed  that  that  telegram  may  be 
read  into  the  record  as  authentic  and  as  having  been  received  on  the 
day  which  it  purports  to  have  been  received  on. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Thank  you,  sir.  Reading  the  telegraphic  script  at 
the  top,  it  is  an  instrument  with  the  number  MA820M.WA237  Long 
Govt,  NLPW — Washington,  D.  C,  21,  Senator  Joseph  McCarthy, 
Appleton,  Wis. : 

Today  you  were  advised  by  letter  delivered  by  hand  to  your  oflace  of  the  prin- 
cipal matters  which  the  subcommittee  desires  to  interrogate  you  in  furtherance 
of  your  express  desire  transmitted  to  the  committee  by  your  administrative 
assistant  that — 

and  a  false  letter — 

Mr.  Ray  Kiermans  under  date  of  November  10.  The  subcommittee  appreci- 
ates your  willingness  to  help  in  the  completion  of  the  work  in  connection  with  the 
Investigation  of  Resolution  187  and  the  investigations  predicated  thereon.  Your 
prompt  appearance  before  the  subcommittee  can  save  the  Government  much 
effort  and  expense.  We  are  sure  that  you  want  to  be  of  help  to  us  in  arriving 
at  a  proper  determination  of  the  issues  in  controversy.  We  are,  therefore,  at 
your  disposal  in  executive  session  and  for  your  convenience  suggest  that  the 
subcommittee  is  available  to  you  commencing  with  tomorrow,  Saturday,  No- 
vember 22,  but  not  later  than  Tuesday  the  25th,  to  enable  the  subcommittee  to 
hear  you  and  allow  time  thereafter  to  prepare  the  subcommittee  report. 

Senator  Benton  has  also  been  notified  to  appear  by  similar  communication. 
This  action  is  being  taken  at  the  direction  and  with  the  full  concurrence  of  the 
committee  members. 

There  is  a  typed  signature  to  the  telegram,  the  customary  form, 
"Senator  Thomas  C.  Hennings,  Jr.,  chairman,  Senate  Subcommittee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections,"  and  final  typed  memorandum  is  not  sig- 
nificant to  me,"  187  22  25." 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  I  should  like  to  ask  counsel  whether  there  is  any 
notation  or  identification  on  the  telegram  to  indicate  the  date  of  its 
delivery. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  The  Senator  no  doubt  heard  the  date,  which  is  the 
21st. 

Senator  Case.  That  is  the  date  of  the  transmission. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  That  is  true,  sir. 

Senator  Case.  Is  there  any  stamping  or  other  indication  on  the 
telegram  to  indicate  the  time  of  its  delivery  ? 

Mr.  Chadw^ick.  Senator,  I  have  already  read,  without  asserting 
the  significance,  from  the  telegram  "187  22  25."  I  do  not  think  that 
answers  your  question. 

However,  at  the  head  of  the  telegram  in  purple  ink  by  stamp  ap- 
pears the  following  matter :  "1952  November  22  A.  M.  8  12." 

Senator  Case.  May  I  see  the  telegram,  please? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  stamping  in  reddish  purple 
ink  reads  "1952,  November  22,  A.  M.  8 :  12." 


48  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

In  the  black  stamp  at  the  top  of  the  telegram  is  "Rec'd  December  1, 
1952." 

The  Chairman.  Since  there  has  been  a  stipulation  with  respect  to 
this  telegram,  I  direct  an  inquiry  to  Mr.  Williams:  Do  you  have  any 
data  which  would  help  us  identify  the  date  on  which  it  was  delivered 
or  received  by  Senator  McCarthy  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  have  not  at  this  time,  sir.  I  was  just  asked  about 
the  telegram  last  night  at  11 :  30,  and  I  ferreted  it  out  of  the  files  so 
that  Mr.  Chadwick  might  have  it  this  moi'iiing. 

I  have  not  consulted  with  Senator  McCarthy  as  to  his  recollection 
as  to  when  it  was  received,  so  I  cannot  help  the  committee  at  this  time, 
but  I  will  be  glad  to  consult  with  him  further  this  morning. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like — pardon. 

]Mr.  Williams.  I  will  direct  his  attention  to  this  telegram,  and  ask 
him  if  he  has  an  independent  recollection  on  this  subject. 

The  Chairman.  I  assume  that  the  exact  date  of  the  delivery  of  the 
telegram  is  not  too  important ;  at  least,  it  was  delivered,  because  it  was 
produced  by  Senator  McCarthy. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  some  significance  in  the  de- 
livery date  of  the  telegram. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

I  am  advised  by  the  operator  of  the  amplifying  equipment  that  only 
two  microphones  can  be  on  at  a  time,  and  if  you  will  wait  until  I  indi- 
cate who  is  to  speak  then  he  will  turn  on  the  microphone  for  that 
particular  one. 

This  amplifying  system  is  not  working  any  too  well,  so  we  have  to 
watch  that,  otherwise  you  may  speak  into  a  dead  microphone. 

Now,  proceed.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  ]Mr.  Chairman,  the  significance  of  the  delivery  dates 
of  the  telegrams  is  this :  That  it  was  ai:)parent  on  reading  exhilDit  No. 
42,  as  it  appears  in  the  so-called  H-H-H  Report  that  the  telegi-am 
which  appears  in  the  print  of  the  committee  report  as  exhibit  No.  42 
was  incorrectly  placed,  if  it  was  sent,  because  it  follows  the  letter  of 
November  21,  and  the  telegram  that  appears  in  tlie  print  invites 
Senator  McCarthy  to  appear  before  the  committee  on  November  20. 

That  obviously  was  in  error,  in  some  date  or  something  of  that  sort, 
so,  in  endeavoring  to  run  that  down,  it  appeared  to  me,  that  the  tele- 
gram, which  shows  as  exhibit  No.  42,  if  sent,  should  have  been  sent  on 
the  14th  of  November,  because  the  first  sentence  of  it  refers  to  "having 
received  the  reply  of  your  administrative  assistant  received  today," 
and  the  letter  of  November  21,  1952,  recites  that  on  November  14,  1952, 
the  subcommittee  received  the  following  communication,  which  was 
the  letter  from  Senator  McCarthy's  assistant. 

Consequently,  I  suggested  to  counsel  yesterday,  after  noting  this, 
that  there  must  have  been  some  other  wire  that  was  referred  to  in  the 
letter  whicli  appears  as  exhibit  No.  44,  by  Senator  IMcCarthy,  dated 
November  28,  wdiich  is  not  yet  read  for  the  record,  but  when  it  is  it 
will  be  noted  that  it  says : 

I  just  received  your  wire  of  November  22  in  which  you  state  you  would  like 
to  have  me  appear  before  your  committee  between  November  22  and  2."). 

Obviously,  if  he  just  received  it  on  the  28th  of  November,  he  could 
not  have  appeared  before  the  committee  sometime  between  November 
22  and  25. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  49 

I  was  wanting  to  determine  if  the  telegram  did  show  the  receipt  on 
that  date  or  a  prior  date.  All  I  know  is  that  from  the  stamping  of 
the  telegram — there  are  two  stampings  to  which  attention  has  previ- 
ously been  called — in  the  reddish  purple  ink,  of  November  22,  a.  m. 
8 :  12.  That  may  have  been  the  time  that  the  telegram  was  received 
by  the  Western  Union.  But  above  in  black  ink  is  stamped  "received 
December  1,  1952,"  so  maybe  that  does  not  shed  too  much  light,  but  it 
seems  to  me  it  would  be 

The  Chairman.  It  may  possibly  be  cleared  up  when  the  other 
exhibits  are  placed  in  the  record.  At  any  rate,  this  exhibit  will  now 
be  received  in  tlie  record. 

Mr.  Williams.  May  I  see  that  exhibit,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairmax.  You  may,  sir. 

You  may  proceed,  Mr.  ChadAvick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  refer  to  exhibit  No.  44,  in  the  se- 
quence of  exhibits,  which  we  are  reading.  This  is  a  letter  signed  by 
Senator  McCarthy,  and  addressed  to  Senator  Thomas  C.  Hennings, 
Jr.,  chairman,  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  Senate 
Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C,  and  is  dated  November  28,  1952. 
It  reads  as  follows : 

Senator  Thomas  C.  Hennings,  Jr., 

Chairman,  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections, 
Senate  Office  Building ,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Senator  Hennings  :  I  just  received  yoiir  wire  of  November  22  in  which 
you  state  you  would  like  to  have  me  appear  before  your  committee  between 
November  22  aud  25. 

As  you  were  informed  by  my  office  prior  to  the  time  you  sent  this  wire,  I  was 
not  expected  to  return  to  Washington  until  Tliursday,  November  27,  on  which 
date  I  did  return. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 

Mr.  AViLLiAMS.  That  is'  also  signed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Yes,  it  is  signed  by  Senator  Joe  McCarthy. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  obviously,  if  he  did  not  receive  the 
wire  until  after  the  date  that  he  was  asked  to  appear  he  could  not 
be  in  contempt  for  failing  to  respond  to  it. 

That  was  my  only  purpose  in  bringing  out  the  significance  of  the 
date  there. 

I  thinlv  it  should  be  determined  when  the  telegram  was  received 
It  makes  quite  a  bit  of  difference.  He  did  not  have  the  physical 
opportunity  to  appear  on  the  suggestion. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  desire  to  make  this  statement  in  fairness  to  all 
parties  particularly  because  the  exhibits  from  which  we  are  quoting 
are  available  in  public  form. 

There  was  among  the  number  an  exhibit  No.  42  which  was  also  a 
Western  Union  telegram.  It  was  a  telegram  from  Senator  Thomas  C. 
Hennings  addressed  to  Senator  McCarthy  at  three  different  addresses. 

We  have  made  the  most  careful  possible  investigation,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  we  cannot  convince  ourselves  that  that  telegram  was  neces- 
sarily sent;  neither  do  we  wish  to  be  understood  as  stating  that  it 
was  not,  but  we  are  not  presently  in  position  to  establish  that  it  was 
sent. 

We  also  think  that  a  date  which  would  have  attached  to  that  tele- 
gram, if  it  had  been  sent,  was  probably  the  14th  of  1952. 


50  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  Chairman.  The  14th  of  what  month  ? 

Mr.  CiiADwiCK.  The  14th  of  November. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  say  this,  if  I  may,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Last  night  when  Mr.  Chadwick  called  me  he  asked  me  to  produce 
the  telegram  which  I  have  in  fact  produced  this  morning  here. 

At  tliat  time  he  told  me  that  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  telegram  which  appeared  in  the  report  over  Senators 
Hennings',  Hendrickson's,  et  cetera's  signatures,  in  other  words,  he 
had  some  doubt  as  he  just  expressed  as  to  whether  that  telegram  was 
in  fact  ever  sent.  Of  course,  it  is  significant  that  bears  no  date  as 
is  shown  in  the  report  itself. 

I  have  combed  Senator  McCarthy's  files  this  morning  in  an  effort 
to  supply  this. 

I  want  to  tell  you  this,  Mr.  Chadwick,  so  that  you  will  have  further 
light  on  this  subject,  I  find  no  copy  of  such  a  document  as  appears  in 
this  report  here,  so  that  your  conviction  as  expressed  to  me  that  this 
telegram  was  probably  never  sent  is  certainly  supported  by  our 
search  of  the  files. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Do  I  understand  that  you  said  to  me  that  you 
have  no  original,  or,  in  other  words,  telegraphic  copy  of  the  telegram? 

Mr.  WiLLiABis.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Case.  Assistant  counsel  is  sitting  at  my  left,  and  he  has  a 
folder  here  which  I  understand  is  a  folder  from  the  files  of  the  so- 
called  Hennings  committee.  And  in  it  appears  a  typewritten  draft 
of  a  telegram  which  is  identical  in  wording  to  the  purported  exhibit 
No.  42  in  the  Hennings  report. 

There  are  an  original  and  four  copies  of  that  telegram.  And  on 
the  face  of  the  original  is  written  in  pencil  the  words  "not  sent." 

I  think  that  would  confirm  the  fact  that  probably  it  has  not  been 
sent.  This  is  from  the  stapled  files  here  from  the  Hennings  com- 
mittee. 

If  the  record  is  to  be  accurate,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  ought  not  to 
be  suggested  that  the  telegram,  or  what  purports  to  be  a  telegram, 
which  is  exhibit  No.  42  in  the  Hennings  report — it  ought  not  to  be 
indicated  that  it  ever  was  sent  unless  there  is  some  evidence  that  it 
was. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  at  the  moment,  as  I  understand  it,  says 
that  there  was  doubt  as  to  whether  it  was  ever  sent  or  not,  and  I  assume 
that  from  the  standpoint  of  the  evidential  v;alue,  it  would  be  considered 
that  it  was  not  sent. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  My  phraseology  on  that  was  dictated  by  a  sense  of 
precaution.  This  is  a  carefully  prepared  telegram,  and  it  does  con- 
tain in  notation  the  words  "not  sent,"  which  I  thougkt  was  strong 
evidence  that  this  telegi'am  could  not  be  sent.  But  I  could  not  affirm 
that  another  telegram  of  substantially  the  same  phraseology  or  even 
this  same  phraseology  had  not  been  sent,  and  we  desire  to  be  allowed 
to  continue  our  investigations  on  it  so  that  we  may  have  the  final  proof. 

Mr.  Williams,  may  I  borrow  back  the  telegram  which  I  redelivered 
to  you  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  in  the  record,  and  would  be  one  of 
the  exhibits.     So  it  belongs  in  the  committee  files  now. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  desire  to  offer  in  evidence  and  have  marked  by  the 
stenographer  as  "Committee  Exhibit  No.  1"  the  telegram  which  has 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  51 

been  read,  being  a  telegi-am  dated  Washington,  21st,  addressed  to  Sen- 
ator McCarthy,  and  signed  by  Senator  Gillette. 

Mi\  Williams.  What  date  was  that  again,  Mr.  Chadwick? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  It  is  the  telegram  which  contains  the  word  "21,"  and 
underneath  it,  1952,  November  22,  a.  m.  8  :  12. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  would  you  read  to  me  again  the  date  on  which 
that  purports  to  have  been  received  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  It  contains  at  the  top,  by  stamp,  Received,  Decem- 
ber 1,  1952,  and  for  further  identification,  it  contains  figures  and 
initials  which  are  no  doubt  telegraphic  detail  which  we  cannot  explain, 
31381,  SVC. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  do  I  understand  that  that  telegram  is  being 
offered  in  lieu  of  the  one  which  appears  on  page  99  of  what  we  will 
call  the  Hendrickson,  Hennings,  Hayden  report  of  exhibit  No.  42? 

Mr.  Chadavick.  I  cannot  confirm  the  "in  lieu  of."  It  is  offered  as  a 
telegram  in  the  exchange  of  correspondence  which  has  been  heretofore 
read.  We  did  not  offer  or  read  the  exhibit  No.  42,  which  is  tlie  tele- 
gram referred  to  by  Senator  Case  and  which  contains  on  its  face  in 
pencil  the  statement,  "Not  sent." 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  advised  the  chairman  that  that  is  the 
telegram,  Mr.  Williams,  that  was  read. 

It  will  be  received  in  evidence  as  a  part  of  the  committee  files. 

(The  telegram  referred  to  was  marked  "Committee  Exhibit  No.  1" 
and  will  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  committee.) 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pause  in  the  deliberations  here  for  a  few 
moments  so  that  one  of  the  exhibits  may  be  examined. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  proceed  with  the  reading  of 
exibit  No.  45,  on  the  letterhead  of  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is 
dated  December  1,  1952.  It  is  addressed  to  Senator  Thomas  C.  Hen- 
nings, Jr.,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  and 
it  is  signed  at  the  end,  "Sincerely  yours,  Joe  McCarthy." 

Dear  Mr.  Hennings  :  This  is  to  acIi:nowledge  receipt  of  yours  of  November  21 
in  which  you  state  that  your  object  is  to  reach  an  "impartial  and  proper  conclu- 
sion based  upon  the  facts"  in  the  Benton  application,  which  asks  for  my  removal 
from  the  Senate. 

I  was  interested  in  your  declaration  of  honesty  of  the  committee  and  would 
like  to  believe  that  it  is  true.  As  you  know,  your  committee  has  the  most  unusual 
record  of  any  committee  in  the  history  of  the  Senate.  As  you  know  two  members 
of  your  staff  have  resigned  and  made  the  public  statement  that  their  reason  for 
resignation  was  that  your  committee  was  dishonestly  used  for  political  purposes. 
Two  Senators  have  also  resigned.  One,  Senator  Welker,  in  the  strongest  possible 
language  indicted  your  committee  for  complete  dishonesty  in  handling  your 
investigation.  Senator  Gillette  also  resigned  without  giving  any  plausible  reason 
for  his  resignation  from  the  committee.  Obviously,  he  also  couldn't  stomach  the 
dishonest  use  of  public  funds  for  political  purposes.  For  that  reason  it  is  diffi- 
cult for  me  to  believe  your  protestations  of  the  honesty  of  your  committee. 

I  would,  therefore,  ordinarily  not  dignify  your  committee  by  answering  your 
letter  of  November  21.  However,  I  decided  to  give  you  no  excuse  to  claim  in 
your  report  that  I  refused  to  give  you  any  facts.  For  that  reason  you  are  being 
informed  that  the  answer  to  the  six  insulting  questions  in  your  letter  of  November 
21  is  "No."  You  understand  that  in  answering  these  questions  I  do  not  in  any 
way  approve  of  nor  admit  the  false  statements  and  innuendoes  made  in  the 
questions. 

I  note  with  some  interest  your  reference  to  my  "activities  on  behalf  of  certain 
special  interest  gi-oups,  such  as  housing,  sugar,  and  China."  I  assume  you 
refer  to  my  drafting  of  the  comprehensive  Housing  Act  of  1946  which  was  passed 
without  a  single  dissenting  vote  in  the  Senate,  either  Democrat  or  Republican. 
Neither  you  nor  any  other  Senator  has  attempted  to  repeal  any  part  of  that 
Housing  Act.     Or  perhaps  you  refer  to  the  slum-clearance  bill  which  I  drafted 


52  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

and  intvoduced  in  1048,  which  slum-clearance  bill  was  adopted  in  toto  by  the 
Democrat-controlled  Senate  in  1949. 

When  you  refer  to  sugar,  I  assume  you  refer  to  my  efforts  to  do  away  with 
your  party's  rationing  of  sugar,  as  I  promised  the  housewives  I  would  during 
my  1946  campaign.  If  that  were  wrong,  I  wonder  why  you  have  not  introduced 
legislation  in  the  Democrat-controlled  Senate  to  restore  sugar  rationing.  You 
have  liad  2  years  to  do  so. 

I  thought  perl)aps  the  election  might  have  taught  you  that  your  boss  and  mine — 
the  American  people — do  not  approve  of  treason  and  incompetence  and  feel  that 
it  must  be  exposed. 

You  refer  to  the  above  as  "special  interests."  I  personally  feel  very  proud 
of  having  drafted  the  Housing  Act  in  1948  which  passed  the  Congress  without  a 
single  dissenting  vote — a  Housing  Act  which  contributed  so  much  toward  making 
it  possible  for  veterans  and  all  Americans  in  the  middle-  and  low-income  groups 
to  own  their  own  home.  Likewise,  I  am  proud  of  having  been  able  to  fulHll 
my  promise  to  American  housewives  to  obtain  the  derationing  of  sugar.  I  proved 
at  the  time  that  rationing  was  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  housewives  but  for  the 
commercial  users. 

I  likewise  am  doubly  proud  of  the  part  I  played  in  alerting  the  American 
people  to  your  administration's  traitorous  betrayal  of  American  interests  through- 
out the  world,  especially  in  China  and  Poland. 

You  refer  to  such  activities  on  my  part  as  "activities  for  special  interests."  I 
am  ciirious  to  know  what  "special  interests"  you  mean  other  than  the  special 
interest  of  the  American  people. 

This  letter  is  not  written  with  any  hope  of  getting  an  honest  report  from  your 
committee.    It  is  being  written  merely  to  keep  the  record  straight. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joe  McCarthy. 

With  initials. 

That,  sir,  completes  the  record  of  the  exhibits  of  letters  in  connec- 
tion with  the  presentation  of  onr  point  I. 

The  Chairmajst.  Now,  Mr.  Chaclwick,  have  you  proceeded  to  ex- 
amine the  Congressional  Record  with  reference  to  further  matters 
pertaining  to  the  subject  or  the  incident  referred  to  in  category  I  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  We  have,  sir,  and  I  request  the  committee  to  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  Congressional  Record,  Senate,  August  2,  1954, 
page  12318,  with  the  following  quotations : 

Mr.  Hennings.  He  was  invited  5  times,  but  did  not  appear  before  the  sub- 
committee upon  any  occasion  except  1,  and  that  was  in  order  to  testify  with 
respect  to  a  resolution  which  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  himself  had 
introduced  in  order  to  investigate  another  Senator,  former  Senator  Benton  of 
Connecticut. 

That  is  evidence  that  Senator  IMcCarthy  had  not  appeared  in  reply 
to  the  invitations  which  have  been  read. 
Similarly,  I  asked  the  committee- 


The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  to  read- 


INIr.  Chadwick.  To  read  from  the  Congressional  Record  ? 

The  CiiAiRMAx.  We  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  Congressional 
Record  of  the  quotations  you  have  read.     Give  the  date  and  the  jxige. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  From  the  Congressional  Record  of  the  Senate, 
August  2, 1951,  at  page  12331. 

JNIr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  want  my  silence  on  this  to 
be  construed  as  an  acquiescence  to  the  general  principle  that  excerpts 
can  be  taken  from  the  record  of  Congress,  statements  made  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  by  any  other  Senator,  and  introduced  in  this  record  as 
competent  evidence ;  we  have  not  objected  to  the  particular  statement 
involved  because  we  feel  that  it  is  not  prejudicial  in  any  way. 

But  I  do  not  want  my  silence  to  be  construed  as  an  acquiescence  of 
the  evidentiary  principle. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  53 

Mr.  Chadwick.  In  the  interests  of  fairness 


The  Chairman.  Have  you  given  tlie  date  and  page  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  did,  sir. 

I  desire  to  say  tliis  is  read  on  our  part  in  the  interest  of  fairness 
and  accuracy  for  the  purpose  of  ])utting  into  tlie  record  Senator 
McCarthy's  statement  on  the  subject  of  the  Lustron  matter,  lest  it 
appear  or  be  thought  that  he  made  no  reply  to  the  matter  in  any 
particular. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  read  it. 

Mr.  Chadwick  (reading)  : 

Mr.  McCarthy.  So  many  misstatements  have  been  made  about  the  Lustron 
matter,  that  I  wonder  whether  the  Senator  from  Idaho  would  like  to  have  me  give 
him  the  facts  in  that  case,  if  I  may. 

I  had  been  writing,  and  I  wrote,  the  Housing  Act  of  1948.  I  took  up  with  the 
special  House  committee  the  question  on  whether  we  should  do  something  to  try 
to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  young  veterans  the  various  aids  which  Congress 
had  provided  for  them.  The  committee  did  not  manifest  any  enthusiasm  in 
response  to  my  suggestion. 

I  then  wrote,  with  the  aid  of  some  very  able  AVashington  newsmen,  what  I 
thought  was  a  complete,  thorough  dissertation  on  what  aids  were  available  and 
liow  they  could  be  obtained. 

Incidentally,  I  offered  it  to  some  of  the  magazines  which  today  are  screaming 
about  this  matter.  I  offered  it  to  them  free  of  charge  if  they  would  publish  it. 
But  they  did  not.  I  received  offers  from  various  corporations  in  the  housing 
business,  who  wanted  to  publish  it.  Lustron  made  what  I  thought  was  the  best 
offer  at  the  time.  Of  course,  later  on  Lustron  went  bankrupt.  The  Lustron  offer 
was  10  cents  a  copy  for  the  first  100,000  copies,  and  5  cents  a  copy  for  each  suc- 
ceeding copy.  The  testimony  of  the  head  of  Lustron  Corp.,  when  he  appeared 
before  the  Banking  and  Currency  Committee,  was,  as  I  recall,  that  that  was  one 
of  the  few  projects  upon  which  they  made  money.  They  lost  money  and  went 
bankrupt  on  the  others.  But  they  made  some  money  on  that,  at  the  rate  of  10 
cents  a  copy. 

I  may  say  that  if  I  were  embarrassed  at  all  regarding  the  Lustron  deal,  it 
would  be  because  my  efforts  were  worth  only  10  cents  a  copy. 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  concludes  the  matters  to  which  I  and  the  staff 
presently  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  on  point  No.  1  of 
the  matters  which  came  under  the  notice  which  you  gave. 

With  your  consent,  my  associate  will  proceed  with  the  presentation 
of  the  matters  under  point  No.  4. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Before  we  leave  category  No.  1  of  the  charges  I 
would  like  to  call  certain  facts  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  which 
I  think  cast  grave  doubt  on  the  relevancy,  materiality  of  all  of  this 
evidence. 

Of  course,  I  do  not  propose  to  speak  in  the  face  of  your  ruling  of 
yesterday  that  I  should  submit  a  legal  brief  on  the  law.  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  discuss  the  law  at  all. 

I  propose  to  discuss  certain  facts  which  are  now  of  record  which  cast 
grave  doubt  on  the  materiality  of  everything  that  has  been  offered. 

The  Benton  resolution,  which  was  Resolution  No.  187,  introduced 
in  the  82d  Congress  calls,  as  I  understand  it,  for  an  investigation  of 
Senator  McCarthy  looking  toward  his  expulsion  from  the  Senate. 

The  significant  thing  about  that  resolution  is  that  it  was  never  passed 
by  the  Senate. 

I  Avill  stand  on  this  statement,  this  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
the  United  States  when  a  resolution  looking  toward  the  expulsion  of 
a  United  States  Senator  was  passed  authorizing  hearings  without  a 


54  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

vote  by  the  Senate.  I  use  tlie  term  "passed."  It  was  never  passed.  It 
was  simply  referred  to  the  Rules  Connnittee,  and  the  Rules  Committee 
in  turn  referred  it  to  the  Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  and 
Administration.    That  is  significant. 

The  second  significant  thing  about  this  resolution  which  in  my 
opinion  invalidates  the  whole  proceeding  pursuant  thereto  is  this,  that 
nowhere  contained  in  that  purported  resolution,  which  was  never  acted 
upon  by  the  United  States  Senate,  but  which  nevertheless  calls  for  a 
hearing  looking  toward  the  expulsion  of  a  Senator,  in  an  unprece- 
dented form — that  resolution  contained  no  allegations,  no  charges,  no 
averments  of  any  kind  against  Senator  McCarthy  as  it  was  in  its 
original  form. 

So  unconscionable  did  the  Senate  of  the  83d  Congress  think  it  was, 
that  a  resolution  even  calling  for  censure  of  another  Senator  did  not 
have  specifications,  allegations,  and  averments,  that  it  voted  75  to  12, 
to  require  the  filing  of  specifications  and  averments,  and  the  reference 
of  those  specifications  to  this  committee. 

That  was  the  way  the  83d  Congress  deported  itself,  because  it 
followed  all  of  the  precedents  of  the  Senate. 

The  other  sigiiificant  thing  about  this  resolution  as  it  now  appears 
of  record,  first  of  all,  it  was  never  passed  by  the  Senate;  secondly, 
it  had  no  allegations  or  specifications  against  Senator  McCarthy, 
The  other  significant  thing  is  that  the  resolution  specifically  author- 
izes the  committee  to  investigate  Senator  McCarthy  from  the  time 
of  his  election  to  the  Senate  in  1946,  and  I  dare  say  that  40  percent 
of  the  report  of  which  this  committee  can  take  judicial  notice,  as 
I  understand  its  rules,  pertains  to  matters  that  antedated  his  election 
to  tlie  Senate,  because  this  committee  as  evidenced  by  its  own  report 
conducted  a  cradle-to-1952  investigation  of  Senator  McCarthy. 

Many  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  the  report  go  back  so  far  as 
6,  8  years  before  his  election  to  the  Senate. 

Therefore,  the  committee  in  its  report  as  evidenced  by  the  very 
record  which  has  been  referred  to  here  this  morning  w^as  acting 
outside  of  the  scope  of  its  authority  from  its  first  day. 

Another  thing  was  this,  that  it  is  evident  now  from  the  record 
as  introduced  here  this  morning.  Senator  McCarthy,  as  the  record 
indicates,  requested  the  right  in  the  expulsion  proceeding  which 
Senator  Benton  had  initiated  to  appear  in  the  hearing  and  confront 
his  accusers  and  cross-examine  them. 

Again  I  say  that  the  history  of  the  Senate  shows  tliat  a  proceeding 
looking  toward  censure  and  expulsion  is  a  judicial  proceeding.  The 
prececlents  are  so  numerous  that  I  will  not  bore  this  committee  by 
alluding  to  tliem,  but  everything  that  has  ever  been  written  about 
article  I,  section  5,  of  the  Constitution,  every  authority  who  has  ever 
written  a  single  line  about  it,  has  said  that  a  proceeding  thereunder 
is  a  judicial  proceeding,  and  the  minimum  safeguards  that  adhere 
to  any  accused  in  any  judicial  proceeding  adhere  to  the  defendant 
in  an  expulsion  or  censure  proceeding.  And  those  minimal  safe- 
guards that  adhere  to  any  judicial  function  are  the  right  to  be 
apprised  of  the  charges  against  the  accused  and  the  right  to  face  his 
accusers,  and  to  cross-examine  them,  to  test  their  credibility  in  the 
crucible  of  cross-examination. 

I  want  to  point  out  that  from  the  very  record  that  has  been  intro- 
duced in  this  proceeding  over  the  past  2  days  it  is  evident,  No.  1, 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  55 

that  there  was  no  authority  from  the  Senate  for  the  conduct  of  the 
hearings  at  the  start. 

No.  2,  there  was  no  specification  of  charges. 

No.  3,  there  was  a  denial  of  the  right  to  cross-examine  by  the  Gil- 
lette committee,  so  that  the  committee  was  operating  in  an  unprece- 
dented manner  that  flouted  every  case  that  ever  had  been  decided  by 
the  United  States  Senate  from  1792. 

Furthermore,  the  resolution  clearly,  unequivocally,  and  unmis- 
takably states  that  they  are  authorized  only  to  expend  funds  to  inves- 
tigate Senator  McCarthy  from  the  date  of  his  election.  And  yet  the 
report,  the  so-called  Hennings,  Henclrickson,  and  Hayden  report, 
shows,  from  even  a  cursory  reading,  that  the  committee  was  con- 
cerned with  things  far,  far  outside  the  scope  of  its  resolution ;  so  that 
if  the  statement  were  made  that  that  committee  was  acting  in  an 
unauthorized  way  and  that  it  was  expending  funds  of  taxpayers  in  an 
unauthorized  fashion,  that  statement,  by  the  very  record  that  is  before 
us,  was  true,  and  true  in  all  respects. 

JFurthermore,  from  even  a  cursory  reading  of  this  proceeding,  it 
is  clear  that  although  Senator  Benton 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Williams.  You  referred  to 
that  report  a  number  of  times ;  and  since  you  have  been  and  are  con- 
sidering it  as  a  base,  I  think  probably  we  will  consider  the  matter  of 
having  the  whole  report  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  part  that  I  am  alluding  to,  sir 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  report  on  S.  183  of  the  82d  Congress,  as  I 
recall. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Now,  may  I  say  this :  Although  there  are  no  charges,  and  although 
there  were  no  specifications,  and  although  there  was  not  a  single  alle- 
gation against  Senator  McCarthy  in  the  original  resolution  looking 
toward  his  expulsion,  Senator  Benton  did  appear  before  the  Hayden- 
Gillette  committee — I  believe  he  appeared  on  September  28,  of  1951, 
if  my  memory  serves  me — and  he  did  in  fact  outline  10  cases  on 
Senator  McCarthy  to  that  committee. 

The  significant  thing  about  the  report  is  that  on  all  the  sworn 
evidence  that  that  connnittee  heard  only  four  pages  of  this  volume 
are  devoted  to  it.  The  rest  of  this  volume  that  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
A\hich  is  the  Hayden  report,  the  Hennings  report,  and  the  Hendrick- 
son  report,  if  you  will,  is  devoted  to  unsworn  hearsay  statements, 
never  taken  under  oath,  of  staff  investigators.  That  was  the  kind  of 
judicial  proceeding  that  that  committee  conducted,  looking  toward 
the  expulsion  of  a  United  States  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams 

Mr.  Williams.  And  it  is  our  position,  sir- 


The  Chairman.  JiLst  a  moment,  Mr.  Williams. 

I  do  not  mind  giving  you  the  time  to  make  the  statement,  but  we 
are  not  trying  over  again  the  matters  that  were  set  forth  in  the  so-called 
Hayden  report  and  Senate  Resolution  187.  I  stated  at  the  outset  that 
we  were  not  concerned  with  whether  those  charges  contained  in  that 
resolution  were  true  or  false.  The  matter  we  were  conducting  our 
investigation  on  is  the  charge  of  contempt  w^ith  respect  to  the  Senate 
committee;  whether  it  made  any  report  or  not  or  w^hether  the  Senate 
had  done  anyhing  about  it  is  not  at  issue  here. 


56  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

But  I  call  3^oiir  attention  also — if  I  can  comment  on  that  while  you 
are  at  it — the  Senate  did  pass  without  a  dissenting  vote  on  April  8, 
1952,  Senate  Resolution  300,  which,  in  effect,  as  we  construe  it,  con- 
firmed and  approved  the  activities  of  the  committee  to  that  point,  and 
also  confirmed  the  jurisdiction. 

INIr.  Williams.  My  point  is  this,  INIr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  And  that,  as  I  understand,  was  submitted  for  the 
very  purpose  of  testino-  out  the  things  we  have  just  been  talking  about, 
and  the  committee  takes  judicial  knowledge  of  the  fact  the  Senate 
by  a  unanimous  vote  has  in  effect  apparently  passed  upon  what  you 
were  talking  on. 

Mr.  Williams.  Let  us  assume  that  that,  sir,  is  in  all  respects  cor- 
rect. If  you  can  concede  that  the  Senate's  action  on  the  date  which 
you  just  recited  was  a  retroactive  authority  to  this  committee,  none- 
theless it  does  not  give  the  committee  wider  authority  than  the  Benton 
resolution  originally  gave  it,  and  the  Benton  resolution  originally 
authorized  an  investigation  of  Senator  McCarthy  only  from  the  time 
that  he  was  a  Senator,  whereas  the  report  shows  that  this  committee 
was  concerned  with  matters  that  antedated  by  6  to  8  years  his  senatorial 
career. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question :  As  I  recall,  much 
of  the  investigation — now  that  is  not  in  evidence  yet,  and,  of  course, 
you  are  talking  about  something  that  is  not  even  in  evidence,  that 
report — but  as  I  recall,  there  were  quite  a  large  number  of  matters 
mentioned  in  that  same  report  with  respect  to  which  the  connnittee 
investigated  that  postdated  the  election  of  Senator  McCarthy  in  1946. 

Mr.  Williams.  May  I  have  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  conclude  my  thought,  the  vote  on  the  Senate 
floor,  which  I  understand  was  60  to  nothing,  can  in  no  way  as  I  under- 
stand it  be  construed  as  a  ratification  of  what  the  committee  had 
theretofore  done. 

It  may  have  been  a  ratification  of  the  original  resolution  under 
which  they  purported  to  operate,  but  I  direct  your  attention,  sir,  to 
the  fact  that  the  original  resolution  carefully  delimits  and  delineates 
the  scope  of  the  investigation  whicli  the  committee  far,  far  exceeded. 

The  CiTAiRiNiAN.  Well,  of  course  the  resolution  itself  is  in  the  record, 
and  that  will  be  considered  by  the  committee  in  going  over  the  evidence 
which  is  submitted.  It  was  placed  in  the  record,  and  I  indicated  at 
the  beginning,  it  was  done  so  Avhether  it  helped  or  hurt. 

Mr.  AViLLiAMS.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  why  we  want  all  the  facts  to  come 
out,  too. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  in  the  record,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  sole  purpose  of  my  remarks,  Mr.  Chairman, 
was  to  call  the  connnittee's  attention  to  all  of  this  evidence,  because 
I  feel,  whetlier  or  not  the  committee  was  operating  validly  or  in- 
validly,  within  or  without  the  scope  of  its  authority,  has  a  gi*eat 
deal  to  do  with  the  relevancy  and  germaneness  of  wlmt  has  been 
offered  lieretofore,  and  my  only  purpose  in  calling  these  facts  to  the 
attention  of  the  committee  in  this  way  was  to  show  as  best  I  could 
in  a  very  cursory  way  the  fact  that  this  whole  proceeding  was  invalid, 
sir,  because  it  contravened  all  the  precedents  of  the  Senate. 

They  conducted  a  judicial  proceeding  with  unsworn  testimony. 
They  included  in  the  recoi'd  things  on  which  they  had  no  evidence. 
The}'  ])ut  in  the  record  reports,  hearsay  reports  of  staff  reporters,  and 


HEARESIGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  57 

I  say  that  48  out  of  52  pages  of  the  report  are  wholly  and  exclusively 
predicated  upon  unsworn  hearsay  evidence. 

No  witness  appeared  before  that  committee  to  support  48  pages 
of  findings  out  of  52  pages  of  findings.  The  only  testimony  that  is 
supported  by  sworn  testimony  is  the  testimony  on  four  pages  which 
Senator  Benton  himself  gave,  so  I  say,  sir,  that  never  in  the  history 
of  the  United  States  Senate  has  an  expulsion  proceeding  been  con- 
ducted without  any  charges,  without  any  right  to  cross-examine,  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  delineated  authority,  and  finally  on  unsworn 
hearsay  reports  of  staff  investigators,  never  taken  either  in  executive 
session  or  in  open  session. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  may  be  one  of  the  matters  the  Senate 
will  want  to  consider,  but  of  course  we  have  the  record.  Whether  it 
finally  shows  actions  constituting  contempt  in  other  matters  that  are 
being  charged  or  not,  that  is  one  of  those  things  we  will  bring  to  the 
attention  of  the  Senate,  and  we  bring  in  that  testimony  because  this 
is  the  means  the  Senate  adopted  for  getting  all  the  information  so  that 
it  can  decide  that  very  question. 

Now  I  call  your  attention,  so  that  the  record  will  be  complete  on 
this  matter,  not  necessarily  because  it  is  needed  but  I  think  it  ought  to 
be  referred  to,  to  this;  the  last  part  of  the  so-called  Benton  resolu- 
tion, Senate  Resolution  187,  has  this  to  say,  and  I  start  on  line  4  on 
page  4  of  the  print  that  was  before  the  Congress : 

and  to  make  such  further  investigation  with  respect  to  the  participation  of 
Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy  in  the  1950  senatorial  campaign  of  Senator  J'olin 
Marshall  Butler,  and  such  investigation  with  respect  to  his  other  acts  since  his 
election  to  the  Senate,  as  may  be  appropriate  to  enable  such  committee  to 
determine  whether  or  not  it  should  initiate  action  with  a  view  toward  expul- 
sion from  the  United  States  Senate  of  the  said  Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy. 

Now  that  is  rather  a  blanket  charge  to  make  some  investigations  to 
say  whether  or  not  there  should  be  charges  filed.  That  is  a  far  differ- 
ent matter  than  what  you  have  been  talking  about. 

And  may  I  say  that  no  matter  how  weak  the  case  may  have  been — 
and  I  am  not  saying  it  was  because  I  am  not  passing  judgment  on 
that — still  the  fact  that  a  Senate  committee  was  considering  it,  and 
through  a  series  of  letters  and  telegrams  was  attempting,  to  get  Sena- 
tor McCarthy  there,  and  through  a  series  of  answers  and  letters  to  that 
committee  he  said  some  things  with  respect  to  the  committee,  whether 
they  were  right  or  wrong  in  what  they  were  actually  doing,  which 
the  Senate  has  felt  of  sufficient  importance  to  refer  to  us  to  investigate 
at  least. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  say,  sir,  that  that  blanket  charge  doesn't 
stretch  so  far  as  to  cover  1944,  though.  Blanket  as  it  is,  it  goes  only 
back  to  1947. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  we  are  not  considering  the  matters  in  that 
at  all.  We  are  only  considering  the  conduct,  and  that  is  the 
ground  of  the  charge,  his  conduct  with  respect  to  a  duly  constituted 
committee. 

Whether  they  had  a  faulty  resolution,  whether  they  had  one  that 
didn't  say  anything  much  at  all,  or  not,  so  far  as  I  can  see  now  is 
wholly  immaterial. 

What  is  material  is  his  conduct  with  respect  to  that  committee  and 
its  activities. 


58  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  May  the  record  show  also,  Mr.  Chairman — and  I 
don't  mean  to  press  this  matter — I  do  have,  as  I  explained  yesterday, 
another  motion  on  this  particular  subject. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  proper  time  we  will  consider  that,  be- 
cause we  liave  had  a  very  short  time  to  prepare  this  matter,  and 
before  we  finally  conclude  the  presentation  of  what  evidence  we  have 
been  able  to  gather,  we  will  check  again,  and  if  there  are  any  loose 
ends,  why  we  want  to  take  care  of  them. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  I  should  like  to  determine,  if  I  could,  the  position 
of  counsel  on  one  point. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  addressing  your  remarks  now  to  Mr. 
Williams? 

Senator  Case.  Yes. 

Mr.  Williams,  is  it  your  position  that  the  acts  or  attitude  of  Sen- 
ator McCarthy  toward  the  Hennings  committee,  if  contemptuous  in 
nature,  were  not  actually  in  contempt,  because  his  committee  was  pur- 
suing a  course  of  inquiry  which  was  outside  the  scope  or  authority  of 
his  committee? 

]Mr.  Williams.  It  is  my  position,  sir,  that  you  cannot  be  in  con- 
tempt of  a  body,  be  it  judicial  or  legislative,  which  is  acting  without 
authority,  and  it  is  mv  position  that  when  this  particular  body  under- 
took to  do  something  which  nobody  authorized  it  to  do,  not  even  the 
one  man  who  proposed  the  investigation  authorized  it  to  do,  nor  tried 
to  authorize  it  to  do,  it  became  a  body  which  was  acting  in  an  un- 
authorized, illegal  manner,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  that 
anyone  could  be  contumacious  in  relationship  to  it  in  the  legal  sense. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  this  to  the  Senator,  in  final  answer  to  your 
question :  It  is  significant,  sir,  tliat  while  this  committee  said  clearly 
in  its  report  that  it  had  the  right  to  subpena  Senator  McCarthy, 
and  tliat  he  was  subject  to  the  mandate  of  a  subpena,  it,  for  reasons 
satisfactory  to  itself  but  never  explained  to  others,  did  not  see  fit  to 
subpena  him;  it  simply  invited  him. 

Now,  when  you  take  Senator  McCarthy's  declination  of  the  invita- 
tion to  that  committee,  against  the  backdrop  of  the  performance  of  the 
committee,  I  think  we  begin  to  see  this  case  in  proper  perspective,  be- 
cause it  is  our  position  that  the  committee  was  unauthorized  in  its 
scope  of  operations,  that  it  was  deporting  itself  in  a  manner  which 
was  at  war  with  all  the  precedents  of  the  Senate  by  not  taking  testi- 
mony under  oath  on  the  charges  or  on  any  matters,  but  rather  by  tak- 
ing hearsay,  unsworn  reports  of  staff  investigators,  and  including 
them  in  a  document  which  purports  to  be  findings  of  facts  in  a  judicial 
proceeding. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case  (continuing).  I  merely  suggest  that  counsel  for  the 
committee,  and  I  also  suggest  that  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy, 
examine  the  record  of  the  Senate  a  few  days  prior  to  the  recent  recess, 
in  whicli  Senator  JNIcCarthy  presented  the  case  of  contempt  against 
Corliss  Lamont  for,  I  think,  the  somewhat  similar  issue  was  involved 
there. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  59 

The  Lamont  claim  was  that  the  investigating  committee  was  seeking 
to  interrogate  him,  Lamont,  on  things  outside  the  scope  of  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  committee. 

I  think  some  statements  that  were  made  there,  the  presentations 
that  were  made,  would  be  useful  to  both  our  counsel  and  to  counsel 
for  Senator  McCarthy. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  in  mind  that  it  may  throw  some  light  on 
the  legal  reasons  and  legal  grounds  underlying  this  matter,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Case.  I  am  sorry,  I  did  not  hear  that. 

The  Chairman.  I  say,  do  you  have  in  mind  that  the  Lamont  matter 
may  throw  some  light  on  the  legal  situation  with  respect  to  the  matter 
we  are  now  investigating? 

Senator  Case.  Well,  that  precise  issue  of  whether  or  not  the  person 
could  be  in  contempt  of  a  committee  if  the  committee  sought  to  inquire 
outside  the  specific  authority  of  the  committee  for  the  specific  matter 
referred  to  it,  w\as  an  issue  that  was  discussed  in  the  Lamont  case  when 
it  was  presented  to  the  Senate  a  couple  of  weeks  ago. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  Senate,  I  think,  adopted  the  resolution, 
did  it  not? 

Senator  Case.  The  Senate  did  adopt  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Williams.  To  send  it  to  the  grand  ]nry,  and  I  understand  the 
case  went  to  the  grand  jury,  and  the  grand  jury  will  pass,  I  assume, 
on  the  prima  facie  validity  of  the  connnittee  which  heard  the  evidence. 

Senator  Case.  Of  course,  there  are  some  other  angles  to  this  matter 
of  contempt  here,  the  dating  of  this,  the  invitations  to  appear  here, 
that  had  been  read  into  the  record  this  morning,  all  were  subsequent 
to  the  adoption  of  Senate  Resolution  300  by  the  Senate  in  wdiich  it, 
in  effect,  continued  the  committee  and  refused  to  withdraw  the  Sen- 
ate Resolution  187. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  much 
of  the  evidence  that  was  introduced  yesterday  antedated  that,  of 
course,  and  the  evidence  that  was  introduced  this  morning  in  some 
cases  postdated  that  period.  But  I  again  call  your  attention.  Senator, 
to  this  fact:  That  all  the  resolution  that  was  proposed  and  passed, 
60  to  nothing,  did  was  to  reaffirm  the  delineated  jurisdiction  of  the 
subcommittee  which  had  been  laid  out  in  the  original  Benton  resolu- 
tion. It  did  not  expand  it  and,  of  course,  the  committee  had  trans- 
gressed and  continued  to  transgress  its  jurisdiction  both  procedurally 
and  substantively,  procedurally  in  refusing  to  conduct  a  judicial  pro- 
ceeding such  as  this  committee  is  doing,  and  such  as  the  Senate  did 
in  this  case. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  arguing  the  law  on  it  now,  Mr.  Williams. 
I  call  your  attention  also,  so  that  we  will  have  this  in  the  record,  to  the 
fact  that  much  of  the  testimony — I  think  I  skimmed  over  the  report, 
and  I  have  it  in  mind — considerable  testimony  related  to  matters  that 
postdate  the  election  of  Senator  McCarthy  and  his  induction  into  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  in  1947. 

Mr.  Williams.  None  of  it  was  based  on  sworn  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  another  matter. 

We  are  talking  about  No.  1  now.  Let  us  stick  with  that  one.  We 
are  talking  about  the  matter  of  whether  there  was  any  material  before 
the  committee  concerning  a  matter  that  happened  after  his  induction 
into  the  United  States  Senate  in  1947. 

52461 — 54 5 


60  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Now  the  committee  takes  the  position,  as  I  have  indicated  before, 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  cjet  all  of  this  evidence,  no  matter  who  it  helps 
or  hurts,  but  I  do  want  to  point  out  to  you  that  we  are  not  just  out  on  a 
wikl-o:oose  chase  on  this  matter — we  are  bringing  it  all  in.  And  in 
the  opinion  of  our  staff  and  the  members  of  the  committee,  there  was 
sufficient  matter  before  that  committee  that  postdated  the  induction 
into  office  of  Senator  Joseph  McCarthy  in  1947  that  probably  it  could 
not  be  argued  that  it  was  not  there  at  all.  So  that  even  if  there  was 
only  one  item,  it  might  have  some  bearing  on  the  argument  you  have 
just  been  making. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  Mr.  Williams  has  made  a 
very  important  point  here. 

He  is,  in  effect,  arguing  for  the  exclusion  of  this  testimony  on  the 
ground  that  it  does  not  state  a  case. 

As  I  understand  your  argument,  it  is  that  this  so-called  Hayden 
subcommittee  was  totally  lacking  in  authority  and  had  no  legal  status, 
and  therefore  could  not  legally  call  Senator  McCarthy  or  anyone  else 
before  it. 

Tliat  goes  to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  it  was  facto  or  de  jure 
or,  just  what  status  do  you  argue  for? 

Mr.  Williams.  My  feeling  on  that  is  dual,  Senator,  if  I  may.  In- 
sofar as  the  Benton  resolution  was  concerned,  which  is  Senate  Resolu- 
tion No.  187,  it  was  never  passed  upon  by  the  Senate,  as  the  record 
will  show. 

It  is  the  first  time  that  there  was  an  expulsion  hearino:  in  the  Senate 
without  authority  from  the  Senate,  which  is  against  all  of  the  prece- 
dents of  the  Senate. 

Secondly,  substantively  thereby  the  jurisdiction  was  not  vested. 

Then  they  voided  themselves  in  the  matter,  which  was  against  all 
precedents  of  the  Senate,  by  not  having  charges  specified  to  them  for 
hearing  such  as  this  committee  has  done.  This  committee  has  charges 
before  it. 

The  83d  Congress  was  careful  to  document  the  resolution  under 
which  this  committee  is  operating.  That  was  not  so  in  the  Benton 
case. 

Thirdly,  they  denied,  refused  in  that  the  right  to  confront  and 
cross-examine  the  accused. 

Senator  Stennis.  Pardon  me,  I  remember  those  points,  but  your 
conclusion  is,  then,  that  they  were  without  le^al  authority  to  proceed? 

Mr.  WiLT-iAMs.  They  were  without  legal  authority  to  proceed  as 
they  started  their  original  investigation,  their  hearings. 

Senator  Stennis.  Therefore,  it  did  not  actually  constitute  a  legal 
arm  of  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Not  for  the  purposes  of  hearing  evidence  on  an 
expulsion  case. 

I  do  not,  of  course,  contest  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Subcommittee  of 
Privileges  and  Elections  as  a  valid  committee  of  the  Senate,  but  I  say 
in  this  mission  they  were  outside  the  scope  of  their  authority  of  that, 
therefore,  they  did  not  constitute  a  valid  arm  of  the  Senate. 

Senator  Stennis.  And  could  not  legally  proceed  in  your  case? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Senator  Stennis.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  61 

Senator  Case.  I  would  affain  sug'gest  that  counsel  both  for  the 
committee  and  for  Senator  McCarthy  examine  the  La  Follette  and 
Lang-er  cases  to  \Yhich  reference  is  made  on  page  71  of  the  Henninfjs 
report,  for  there  the  contention  is  made  that  in  the  case  of  the  old 
Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  5  cases  had  been  presented 
to  them  that  were  unconnected  with  an  election,  and  in  3  of  those, 
the  Smoot,  Burton,  and  Gold  cases,  the  Senate  adopted  resolutions 
directing  an  investigation  of  the  charges,  but  in  the  other  2  cases, 
those  of  La  Follette  and  Langer,  the  petitions  and  protests  of  private 
citizens  were  referred  by  the  presiding  ofiicer  to  the  Committee  on 
Privileges  and  Elections,  which  then  conducted  investigations  with- 
out obtaining  resolutions  of  authorizations  from  the  Senate, 

The  contention  is  there  made  that  on  the  basis  of  those  precedents 
in  the  Langer  and  La  Follette  cases,  the  predecessor  committee  pro- 
ceeded on  its  own  motion  by  reference  of  this  material  to  it. 

There  is  further  cited  section  184  of  the  Legislative  Reorganiza- 
tion Act.  It  seems  to  me  that  a  study  of  those  cases  and  of  the  Legis- 
lative Reorganization  Act  would  be  helpful  in  arriving  at  a  proper 
conclusion. 

The  Chairmax.  Senator  Case,  I  will  say  that  as  far  as  the  com- 
mittee staff  is  concerned,  we  certainly  will  direct  them  to  make  a  full 
investigation  of  the  matters  you  call  attention  to.  We  want  to  get 
all  of  the  precedents,  all  of  the  law  matters,  the  arguments  before  us, 
so  that  we  can  submit  them  all  to  the  Senate  in  our  report,  on  both 
sides  of  the  question,  if  possible. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  might  say.  Senator  Case,  that  the  Langer  case 
started  out,  sir,  as  an  exclusion  case,  and  through  a  series  of  procedural 
mechanisms,  which  would  take  too  long  to  go  into  here,  it  ended  up 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  an  expulsion  case,  but  I  think  for  a 
number  of  reasons,  neither  it  nor  the  La  Follette  case  is  germane  to 
this  particular  inquiry. 

But  I  do  not  want  to  burden  the  committee  at  this  time  with  a  legal 
proposition,  and  I  will  cover  this  in  the  briefs  which  I  submit  to  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  you  gentlemen  will  find  as  you  investigate 
the  records  of  the  Senate  that  the  Senate  fixes  its  own  rules  from  time 
to  time,  ancl  they  are  not  always  the  same.  At  least,  that  is  what  I 
have  found  in  my  investigations. 

And  in  the  particular  inquiry  we  are  in  now,  I  think  we  are  plowing 
in,  many  parts  of  it,  virgin  soil. 

You  may  proceed  with  the  presentation  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  In  the  fourth 

The  Chairiman-.  In  the  fourth  category. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  de  Furia,  with  your  permission,  will  take  that. 

The  Cttaiksian.  I  may  say  also  that  in  the  fourth  category,  some 
of  the  material  that  has  been  presented  heretofore  will  be  considered 
by  the  connnittee  as  having  some  bearing  on  the  fourth  charge. 

Mr.  de  Furia,  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  call  to  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee the  2  specifications,  being,  1,  the  amendment  offered  by  Senator 
Flanders  to  Senate  Resolution  301,  reading  as  follows : 

He  has  ridiculed  his  colleagues  in  the  Senate,  defaming  them  publicly  and 
in  vulgar  and  base  language  (regarding  Senator  Hendrickson— "A  living  niiraele 
without  brains  or  guts";  on  Flanders— "Senil(^-I  thiak  they  should  get  a  man 
with  a  net  and  take  him  to  a  good,  quiet  place.")  — 


62  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

and  also  the  specification  based  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by 
Senator  Morse  reading  as  follows : 

(b)  Unfairly  aceusod  his  fellow  Senators  Gillette,  Monroney,  Hendrickson, 
Hayden,  and  Henniugs  of  improper  conduct  in  carrying  out  their  duties  as 
Senators. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  part  of  the  presentation  will  be  brief.  We 
would  like  to  read  into  the  record  certain  documentary  matters  and 
then  call  two  witnesses,  sir,  whose  testimony  will  be  relatively  brief. 

The  Chairman,  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment. 

Mr.  Williams.  May  I  see  the  documentary  matter  that  is  being 
introduced,  sir  ? 

I  think  that  I  should  have  a  copy  of  this  material.  I  do  not  have 
any  idea  what  he  is  undertaking  to  offer,  and  therefore  I  cannot  talk 
to  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  I  think  that  point  is  well  taken,  Mr.  Chairman.  The 
first  part  of  it  is  a  group  of  letters  which  we  have  already  offered  and 
read  into  evidence. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  So  I  take  it  Mr.  Williams'  objection  does  not  pertain 
to  that,  and  we  will  be  glad  to  show"  him,  sir,  immediately  what  we 
propose  to  present  to  the  committee,  based  on  the  documentary 
evidence. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  make  that  suggestion  because  I  think  we  may  be 
able  to  save  time  if  w^e  can  stipulate  to  some  of  these  things. 

The  Chairjvian.  Well,  it  has  been  difficult  for  us  to  make  all  the 
contacts  necessary  in  this  investigation  up  to  date  As  counsel  knows, 
we  have  had  a  very  short  time,  and  there  have  been  many  other  ac- 
tivities, and  it  has  been  very  difficult  to  get  everything  prepared  as  we 
would  have  liked  to  have  it. 

However,  you  may  run  across  considerable  evidence  before  we  get 
through  that  we  can't  apprise  you  of  in  advance,  and  you  probably 
will  have  some  that  you  won't  tell  us  about  until  it  is  presented  before 
the  committee. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  May  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  In  connection  with  the  specification  of  Senator 
Morse,  we  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  letters  already 
admitted  in  evidence  from  Senator  McCarthy,  being  a  letter  from 
Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Gillette,  exhibit  No.  6,  December  6, 
1951;  a  letter  from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Gillette,  December 
10,  1952,  exhibit  No.  10 ;  a  letter  from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator 
Hayden,  March  21,  1952,  being  exhibit  No.  13;  letter  fi'om  Senator 
McCarthy  to  Senator  Gillette,  May  8,  1952,  being  exhibit  No.  18; 
letter  from  Senator  McCarthy  to  Senator  Gillette,  May  11,  1952,  be- 
ing exhibit  No.  21 ;  those  exhibit  numbers,  of  course,  referring  to  the 
appropriate  exhibit  numbers  in  the  H-H-H  report. 

Now  I  would  like  to  inquire,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether  Mr.  Williams 
has  had  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  copy  of  certain  proposed  docu- 
mentary evidence  which  we  desire  to  admit  from  the  Army-McCarthy 
hearings. 

Mr.  Williams,  I  haven't  had  a  chance  to  examine  it,  because  you 
haven't  given  it  to  me. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  63 

Tlie  Chairman.  You  will  have  a  chance  to  see  it  before  we  get 
through  with  the  investigation.    The  committee  will  have  to  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  It  will  only  take  a  minute,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  We  can't,  of  course,  always  give  the  new  testimony 
in  advance.  There  is  no  rule  requiring  it.  We  like  to  do  it  as  a  matter 
of  courtesy,  but  in  this  particular  instance  we  haven't  been  able  to 
get  to  it,  but  we  will  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  that  there  be  read  into  evidence 
that  portion  of  the  testimony  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings,  volume 
25,  of  the  transcript  on  June  2, 1954,  before  the  Special  Subcommittee 
on  Investigations  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Operations,  page 
4782,  reading  as  follows : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Flanders  in  this  statement  attempts  to  raise  the 
question  of  religious  racial  bigotry.  I  think  it  is  a  vicious  thing.  I  read  his 
speech.  I  don't  believe  he  wrote  it  himself.  I  think  the  kindest  thing  you  can 
say  about  Ralph  is  that  this  may  be  the  result  of  senility.  He  tries  to  inject 
religious  racial  bigotry  into  this  fight  to  expose  Communists. 

We  desire  to  read  into  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman,  another  portion  of 
the  same  testimony  from  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings,  being  volume 
24  of  June  1,  1954,  page  4546,  reading  as  follows : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a  statement  by  the  Senator  from 
Vermont  in  the  nature  of  a  question.  I  have  been  very  patient  with  the  Sena- 
tor from  Vermont  as  he  has  engaged  in  his  diatribes  over  the  past  number  of 
weeks.  I  have  felt  that  he  is  a  nice,  kind  old  gentleman.  I  wondered  whether 
this  has  been  a  result  of  senility  or  viciousness. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  desire  to  read  into  the  record  another  part  of  the 
same  testimony,  being  volume  32,  June  11,  1954,  page  6321,  reading 
as  follows : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  that  I  have  no  feud  with  Mr. 
Flanders.  I  have  said  that  I  thought  it  was  not  the  result  of  viciousness  but 
perhaps  senility  that  he  is  making  these  unfounded  attacks.  I  feel,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, however,  that  where  any  Senator  has  information  of  value  to  this  commit- 
tee, that  then  he  should  be  willing  to  come  before  this  committee  and  take  the 
oath  and  be  cross-examined.  However,  as  the  Chair  says,  I  am  merely  a  witness 
here.  The  Chair  is  running  the  committee,  so  I  will  abide  by  any  decision  made 
by  the  Chair  obviously. 

At  this  point  we  desire  to  call  as  a  witness  Bernard  Livingstone,  sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Will  you  raise  your  right  hand  and  be  sworn  ? 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  given  in  the  matter  pend- 
ing before  the  committee  will  be  the  truth,' the  whole  truth,  and  noth- 
ing but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?    " 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  BERNARD  LYNN  LIVINGSTONE 

The  Chairman.  You  may  state  your  name  and  your  address  for  the 
purposes  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Bernard  Lynn  Livingstone,  7110  Georgia  Street, 
Chevy  Chase,  Md. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  are  here  under  subpena  served  upon  you  at  the 
direction  of  counsel  for  the  committee;  is  that  correct,  sir? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  And  what  is  your  business  or  profession,  Mr.  Liv- 
ingstone? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  am  a  reporter  for  the  Associated  Press. 


64  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  by  the  Associated 
Press,  Mr.  Livingstone  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  am  completing  25  years. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Do  you  know  Senator  McCarthy? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  do. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  How  long  have  you  known  Senator  McCarthy — 
known  him  to  recognize  and  talk  to? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Casually,  upward  of  4  or  5  years,  I  should  say. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  vou  attend  a  press  conference  called  by  Senator 
McCarthy  on  June  lia954? 

Mr.  Livingstone,  Well,  those  were  in  the  course  of  the  Army  hear- 
ings, I  understand.  I  do  not  think  that  I  attended  a  press  conference. 
J  did  speak  to  him,  however. 

Mr.  DE  FuRTA.  Did  you  speak  to  him  alone  or  in  company  with  other 
reporters  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  spoke  to  the  Senator  at  the  noon  recess,  approxi- 
mately 12:  ?)0,  in  company  with  other  reporters. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  However,  it  was  not  formally  a  press  conference — 
was  that  the  point  of  your  correction  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  is  the  point  I  am  trjdng  to  make. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Where  did  you  speak  to  him  on  that  day,  Mr.  Living- 
stone ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  The  Senator  was  at  the  witness  table — this  table 
that  I  am  sitting  at,  I  believe. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  In  this  room  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  In  this  room.     On  June  11. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  say  there  were  other  reporters  present  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Yes.  The  occasion  was  as  the  hearings  broke  up 
for  the  luncheon  recess,  a  number  of  reporters,  myself  included,  walked 
over  from  the  press  table  to  the  Senator  who  was  sitting  at  the  witness 
table,  and  asked  him  if  he  had  any  comment  to  make  about  a  speech 
that  Senator  Flanders  was  to  deliver  on  the  Senate  floor  that  after- 
noon, I  think  it  was. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Will  you  give  the  rest  of  the  conversation  and,  of 
course,  I  am  particularly  inquiring  as  to  whether  Senator  McCarthy 
made  any  statement  or  reference  or  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Yes,  we  had  received  advance  copies  of  the  text 
of  the  Senator's  speech  during  the  morning. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Wliich  Senator's  speech  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  "Wliich  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Senator  Flanders.  And  we  had  an  opportunity 
to  look  it  over,  and  I  think — I  know  I  did,  at  least,  underline  several 
points  which  appeared  to  be  interesting  to  me,  and  when  the  recess  was 
called  I  walked  over,  stepped  over  from  the  press  table  to  the  witness 
table,  and  handed  it  to  the  Senator  and  asked  him  if  he  had  any  com- 
ment he  cared  to  make  on  the  Senator's  speech. 

A  few  minutes  before  Senator  Flanders  himself  had  walked  into 
the  committee  room  and  served  notice  on  Senator  McCarthy  that  he 
w^as  to  make  that  speech. 

And  the  Senator  looked  at  it  briefly  and  smiled  and  said : 

I  think  they  should  get  a  man  with  a  net  and  take  him  to  a  good,  quiet  place. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Now,  you  have  quoted  the  utterance  of  Senator 
McCarthy ;  is  that  correct,  sir  ? 
Mr.  LivTNGSTONE.  I  liavB,  sir. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  65 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  send  that  in  as  part  of  your  story  to  your 
office? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  did.  It  was  very  brief.  It  was  sent  from 
downstairs  in  the  press  room,  a  matter  of  three  lines,  and  the  time  at 
12 :  46  p.  m. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  that  story  put  on  the  national  wires,  containing 
that  quote,  by  the  AP  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  was,  sir.  That  was  placed  in  our  running 
national  trunk  story  of  the  day.  I  don't  know,  I  think  the  time  on  the 
original  was  about  10  minutes  after  I  had  sent  it  in  from  the  press 
room  here  in  the  Senate  Office  Building. 

The  Chairman.  Does  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy  wish  to  cross- 
examine  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  just  have  1  or  2  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  identify  the  particular  speech,  if  I  may, 
Mr.  Livingstone,  that  you  showed  to  Senator  McCarthy.  Was  that 
the  speech  in  which  Senator  Flanders  spoke  about  civilization  coming 
to  an  end,  in  his  opinion  ? 

He  said,  as  I  recall  it,  that  the  civilization  through  which  we  were 
passing  was  coming  to  an  end ;  that  is  what  identifies  the  speech  in  my 
mind.     Is  that  the  one  to  which  you  have  reference  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  mj'Self  don't  know  what  was  in  the  speech, 
because  the  speech  itself  was  made  on  the  floor. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  it  the  speech  in  which  he  said  he  drew  the 
parallel  between  Senator  McCarthy  and  Hitler  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  believe  it  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  Then  that  is  the  speech,  I  take  it 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  was  the  speech  of  June  11. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  is  the  one  you  are  talking  about. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  only  speech  the  Senator  made  that 
•day ;  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  That  is  the  only  one  he  made  that  day. 

Mr.  Livingstone.  That  is  the  only  one. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  identify  it  for  you,  Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Wn^LiAMS.  I  am  trying  to  fix  the  context  of  it,  sir,  because  I 
feel  that  may  have  relationship  to  the  remark  that  was  prompted,  and 
in  trying  to  fix  the  context  of  it,  I  have  to  ask  him  if  it  was  the  speech 
in  which  these  things  were  said. 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Well,  this  was  the  speech  in  which 

The  Chairman.  The  only  thing  he  has  testified  to,  of  course,  was 
the  remark  that  Senator  McCarthy  is  supposed  to  have  made. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  particularly,  Mr.  Livingstone,  when  you 
called  this  speech  to  Senator  McCarthy's  attention,  direct  his  atten- 
tion to  any  facet  of  it,  or  did  you  just  hand  him  the  whole  speech 
and  let  him  read  it  ? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  don't  think  you  would  say  that  I  attracted  his 
attention  to  any  particular  facet.  As  is  customary  when  you  have 
advanced  texts,  you  underline  certain  parts  that  you  think  are  inter- 
esting, and  I  think  my  copy  of  the  text  was  underlined  here  and  there 
throughout  the  copy  of  the  advance. 


66  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr,  WiiJvTAMs.  So  that  we  can  identify  this  context,  did  you  under- 
line that  part  of  the  speech  which  said  that  "our  civilization  has  passed 
through  its  maturity  and  is  approaching  its  end?" 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  could  not  recall. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  remember  saying  anything  to  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy, about  this  speech,  about  the  coming  of  the  end  of  civilization? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  have  no  recollection  of  that  at  all. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  remember  saying  anytliing  to  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy concerning  the  parallel  that  was  drawn  between  him  and 
Hitler? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  you  are  not  able  to  helj)  us  with  the  context? 

Mr.  Livingstone.  I  am  not.  I  merely  had  the  copy  and  laid  it 
on  the  table  before  him,  and  asked  if  he  had  a  comment.  My  only 
interest  was  in  his  comment. 

Mr.  WiLUAMS.  Tliank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Livingstone. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  questions  by  members  of  the  com- 
mittee ? 

If  not,  you  will  be  excused,  Mr.  Livingstone. 

Mr.  Livingstone.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Call  your  next  witness. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Joseph  W.  Hall,  Jr.,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CiiAiiaiAN.  Mr,  Hall,  please  come  forward.  Raise  your  right 
hand. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  in  the  matter 
now  pending  before  the  committee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  I  do. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Shall  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOSEPH  W.  HALL,  JR. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  What  is  your  address,  Mr.  HaU  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Silver  Spring,  Md. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Are  you  here  under  subpena  issued  at  the  request  of 
counsel  for  the  committee? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir;  I  am. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  What  is  your  business  or  profession  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  I  am  a  reporter  for  the  Associated  Press  assigned  to 
the  Senate  staff, 

Mr,  DE  Furia,  How  long  have  you  been  a  reporter,  sir  ? 

Mr,  Hall.  Well,  I  have  been  a  reporter  about  20  years,  and  I  have 
worked  for  the  AP  since  1937, 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Do  you  know  Senator  McCarthy  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  How  long  have  you  known  Senator  McCarthy  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  about  4  years,  I  would  say. 

Mr.  DE  Furia,  Do  you  know  wliether  you  talked  to  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy on  the  evening  of  January  2,  1953,  Mr.  Hall  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir,  I  believe  that  I  did. 

Mr.  DE  Furia,  Was  that  talk  in  person  or  by  telephone,  sir? 

Mr.  Hall.  By  telephone. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  ? 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  67 

Mr.  Hall.  In  the  Senate  Press  Galley,  Mr.  de  Fnria. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  So  far  as  you  know,  where  was  Senator  McCarthy 
at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  PIall.  I  don't  know,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Now,  do  you  have  notes  of  the  telephone  conversa- 
tion between  Senator  McCarthy  and  you  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  No,  sir,  I  don't  have  my  notes.  But  I  have  a  story,  or 
rather  a  file 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Just  a  minute,  please.     You  have  a  file  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuBLA..  Do  you  have  any  recollection  at  the  present  time, 
independent  of  your  notes  or  your  files,  of  conversations  between  the 
Senator  and  you  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  based  upon  the  record  here,  I  believe  that  I  talked 
to  Senator  McCarthy  that  night  and  obtained  from  him  a  statement, 
which  we  had  requested. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Thank  you.     Now,  what  time  was  that,  Mr.  Hall? 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  the  story  that  I  wrote  is  timed  8:  51  p.  m. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  All  right.  Now,  will  you  tell  us  to  the  best  of  your 
recollection  and  your  knowledge  what  was  the  conversation  by  tele- 
phone had  between  you  and  Senator  McCarthy? 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  by  way  of  background,  January  2  was  the  day  the 
Hennings  subcommittee  report  was  issued,  and  we  had  unquestionably 
asked  Senator  McCarthy  to  comment,  because  that  is  our  practice, 
and  according  to  our  files,  he  had  issued  a  statement,  a  written  state- 
ment. Then  later  in  the  evening,  according  to  this  story  that  I 
wrote,  which  is  marked  as  an  insert  in  the  Hennings  subcommittee 
report  story,  he  telephoned  a  further  comment  on  the  report  of  5  or 
6  paragraphs,  and  I  took,  based  on  the  record  here — I  believe  that 
I  took  that  statement,  and  I  believe  that  it.  is  accurate.  Do  you 
want  me  to  read  it  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hall.  Just  all  of  the  paragraph  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  starting  off  with  a  full  paragraph : 

In  his  telephone  comment,  McCarthy  said,  "This  report  accuses  me  either 
directly  or  by  innuendo  and  intimation  of  the  most  dishonest  and  improper 
conduct. 

"If  it  is  true,  I  am  unfit  to  serve  in  the  Senate.  If  it  is  false,  then  the  three 
men  who  joined  in  it — namely,  Hendrickgon,  Hennings,  and  Hayden — are  dis- 
honest beyond  words. 

"If  those  three  men  honestly  think  that  all  of  the  four  things  of  which  they 
have  accused  me,  they  have  a  deep,  moral  obligation  tomorrow  to  move  that 
the  Senate  does  not  seat  me  as  a  Senator." 

Parenthetically,  "tomorrow"  was  January  3,  the  opening  of  the 
83d  Congress. 

"If  they  think  the  report  is  true,  they  will  do  that.  If  they  know  the  report 
is  completely  false  and  that  it  has  been  issued  only  for  its  smear  value,  then 
they  will  not  dare  to  present  this  case  to  the  Senate. 

"This  committee  has  been  squandering  taxpayers'  money  on  this  smear  cam- 
paign for  nearly  18  months.  If  they  feel  that  they  are  honest  and  right,  why 
do  they  fear  presenting  their  case  to  the  Senate? 

"I  challenge  them  to  do  that.  If  they  do  not,  they  will  have  proved  their 
complete  dishonesty. 

"I  can  understand  the  actions  of  the  leftwingers  in  the  administration,  like 
Hennings  and  Hayden.  As  far  as  Hendrickson  is  concerned,  I  frankly  can  bear 
him  no  ill  will. 


68  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

"Suffice  it  to  say  that  he  is  a  living  miracle  in  that  he  is  without  question 
the  only  man  in  the  world  who  has  lived  so  long  with  neither  brains  nor  guts." 

That  ends  the  statement  that  I 

Mr.  DE  FuEiA.  Was  that  sent  by  you,  Mr.  Hall,  to  the  AP  office  here 
in  Washington? 

Mr.  Hall.  This  statement  from  which  I  have  been  reading  is  a 
coi)y  that  I  wrote  and  was  sent  by  teletype  printer  from  the  Senate 
Press  Gallery  into  onr  office  downtown. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  it  go  over  the  wire? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir.     Do  you  want  the  reference  on  that? 

Mr.  nE  FuRiA.  It  went  over  the  national  wires;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  And  that  would  be  to  your  associated  newspapers? 

JMr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir.  It  went  over  our  trunk  wire,  which  is  the 
A  wire  over  the  United  States,  at  9 :  45  p.  m, 

]Mr.  nE  FuRTA.  On  what  day  ? 

Mr.  Hall.  On  the  night  of  January  2,  as  an  insert  giving  Senator 
McCarthy's  comment  in  the  story  of  the  Hennings  subcommittee  re- 
port. We  had  a  long  story  out,  I  assume,  on  the  Hennings  subcom- 
mittee report,  and  this  was  sent  as  an  insert,  giving  Senator  McCarthy's 
comment  on  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  wish  to  cross-examine,  Mr.  Williams  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  iust  have  1  or  2  questions  to  ask,  if  I  may,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  maj''  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Hall,  as  I  understand  it  when  you  talked  to 
Senator  McCarthy  on  January  2  of  1953,  he  was  addressing  his  re- 
marks to  this  report  about  which  we  have  had  so  much  conversation 
this  morning,  the  so-called  Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson  report;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  H  \LL.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am  sure  we  had  asked  him  for  comment  on  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  in  colloquy  that  you  had  with  him  in  that 
telephone  conversation,  as  I  understand  it,  he  said  to  you  that  if  these 
men  believed  these  things  to  be  true  which  were  stated  by  innuendo 
in  this  report,  that  it  behooved  them  to  stand  up  on  the  Senate  floor 
on  January  3,  1953,  and  challenge  his  being  seated;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Hall.  That's  right.     "I  challenge  them  to  do  that,"  he  said. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  is  what  he  said? 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr  Williams.  That's  all. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Hall. 

The  Chairman.  Does  anv  member  of  the  committee  have  a  ques- 
tion ?     If  not,  then,  Mr.  Hall,  you  are  excused. 

The  committee  will  now  be  in  recess  until  2  this  afternoon. 

(Whereupon,  at  12: 18  p.  m.,  the  committee  recessed  until  2  p.  m., 
this  same  day.) 

afternoon  session 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (chairman),  Johnson  of  Colorado  (vice 
chairman),  Stennis,  Carlson,  Case,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel  to 
the  committee;  Guy  G.  de  Furia,  assistant  connsel  to  the  committee; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee ;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  member; 
Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator  Watkins^ 
staff  on  loan  to  the  committee ;  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams,  counsel 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  69 

to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A.  Neill  and  Brent 

Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  in  session.  Counsel  will  now 
proceed  with  the  presentation  of  documentary  evidence,  of  which  the 
committee  takes  judicial  notice. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  this 
evidence  is  with  respect  to  point  No.  5  of  the  notice  which  was  hereto- 
fore given  to  the  parties  as  prescribed  by  the  chairman  covering  inci- 
dents relating  to  Ralph  Z wicker,  a  general  officer  of  the  Army  of  the 
United  States. 

That  is  supported  in  the  statement  by  quotations  from  various  pro- 
posed amendments  which  have  been  submitted  to  this  committee  for 
consideration  by  the  Senate  itself. 

I  therefore  call  attention  to  the  amendments  proposed  by  Mr.  Ful- 
bright  to  the  resolution,  Senate  Resolution  301,  in  which  he  said : 

Without  justification  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  impugns  the  loyalty, 
patriotism,  and  character  of  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker. 

Also,  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution  as 
follows : 

(c)  As  chairman  of  a  committee  resorted  to  abusive  conduct  in  his  interroga- 
tion of  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker,  including  a  charge  that  General  Zwicker  was 
unfit  to  wear  the  uniform — 

during  the  appearance  of  General  Zwicker  as  a  witness  before  the  Per- 
manent Subcommittee  on  Investigations  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Government  Operations  on  February  18,  1954. 

The  third  is  from  the  amendment  proposed  by  Senator  Flanders  to 
the  resolution.  Senate  Resolution  301,  viz : 

He  has  attacked  the  fame  and  besmirched  military  heroes  of  the  United  States, 
either  as  witnesses  before  his  committee  or  under  the  cloak  of  immunity  of  the 
Senate  floor — General  Zwicker,  General  Marshall. 

I  ask  the  committee  to  take  judicial  notice  that  on  February  18, 1954, 
Senator  McCarthy  was  chairman  of  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on 
Investigations  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Operations  of  the 
Senate  in  the  83d  Congress,  2d  session,  and  also  chairman  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Government  Operations. 

I  also  ask  the  committee  to  take  judicial  notice  of  the  transcript  of 
hearing,  and  I  propose  to  offer  in  evidence  and  read  into  the  record  the 
following  testimony  given  by  General  Zwicker  under  examination  for 
the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Operations,  and  appearing  as 
part  of  the  record  of  hearings  before  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on 
Investigations,  of  which  Senator  McCarthy  was  chairman,  held  on 
February  18,  1954,  using  for  the  purpose  the  official  transcript  certified 
and  sworn  to  by  the  report. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  that  hearing  held  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  That  hearing  was  held,  sir,  in  executive  session  in 
room  110,  Federal  Building,  New  York  City,  N.  Y.,  Senator  Joseph  R. 
McCarthy  presiding. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  now  begin  the  reading  of  the  transcript  of  the 
subject  matter  referred  to: 

The  Chairman.  General,  would  you  raise  your  right  hand  and  be  sworn?  In 
this  matter  now  in  hearing  before  the  committee,  do  you  solemnly  swear  to  tell 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 


70  HEARENGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Testimony  of  Brig.  Gen.  Ralph  W.  Zwicker,  United  States  Army  ;  Accom- 
panied BY  Capt.  W.  J.  Woodward,  Medical  Corps,  United  States  Army 

General  Zwicker.  I  do. 

Before  we  start,  there  is  no  need  for  a  medical  officer  to  be  in  here. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  O.  K. 

Mr.  CoHN.  A  man  who  is  his  own  lawyer  has  a  fool  for  a  client,  and  it  is  the 
same  thing  with  a  man  who  tries  to  be  his  own  doctor. 

General,  could  we  have  your  full  name? 

General  Zwicker.  Ralph  W.  Zwicker. 

Mr.  CoiiN.  General,  to  see  if  we  can  save  a  little  time  here,  isn't  the  situa- 
tion this — by  the  way,  you  have  been  commanding  officer  at  Kilmer  since  when? 

General  Zwicker.  Since  the  middle  of  July  last  year. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Has  the  Peress  case  come  to  your  attention  since  that  time?  I 
am  not  asking  questions  about  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

Mr.  CoHN.  It  has  come  to  your  attention,  and  you  have  a  familiarity  with 
that  case? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  general,  would  you  like  to  be  able  to  tell  us  exactly  what 
happened  in  that  case,  and  what  steps  you  took  and  others  took  down  at  Kilmer 
to  take  action  against  Peress  a  long  time  before  action  was  finally  forced  by 
the  committee? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  a  toughie. 

Mr.  CoHN.  All  I  am  asking  you  now  is  if  you  could,  if  you  were  at  liberty 
to  do  so,  would  you  like  to  be  in  a  position  to  tell  us  that  story  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Well,  may  I  say  that  if  I  were  in  a  position  to  do  so,  I 
would  be  perfectly  glad  to  give  the  committee  any  information  that  they  desired. 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  certainly  feel  that  that  information  would  not  reflect  unfavor- 
ably on  you;  is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  Definitely  not. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  would  not  reflect  unfavorably  on  a  number  of  other  people 
at  Kilmer  and  the  First  Army? 

General  Zwicker.  Definitely  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  reflect  unfavorably  upon  some  of  them,  of  course? 

General  Zwicker.  That  I  can't  answer,  sir.     I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  know  that  somebody  has  kept  this  man  on,  know- 
ing he  was  a  Communist,  do  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  somebody  has  kept  him  on  knowing  that  he 
has  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist,  do  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  afraid  that  would  come  under  the  category  of  the 
Executive  order,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  What? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  afraid  an  answer  to  that  question  would  come  under 
the  category  of  the  Presidential  Executive  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer  the  question. 

General  Zwicker.  Would  you  repeat  the  question,  please? 

Mr.  Cohn.  Read  it  to  the  general. 

(The  question  referred  to  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the 
grounds  of  the  directive.  Presidential  directive,  which,  in  my  inteiijretation,  will 
not  permit  me  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  record  show  he  was  ordered — 

followed  by  stars  to  show  the  sentence  was  not  completed. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  somebody  signed  or  authorized  an  honorable 
discharge  for  this  man,  knowing  that  he  was  a  fifth  amendment  Communist; 
do  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  know  that  an  honorable  discharge  was  signed  for  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  The  day  the  honorable  discharge  was  signed,  were  you  aware 
of  the  fact  that  he  had  appeared  before  our  committee? 

General  Zwicker.  I  was. 

The  Chairman.  And  had  refused  to  answer  certain  questions? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir;  not  specifically  on  answering  any  questions.  I 
knew  that  he  had  appeared  before  your  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Didn't  you  read  the  news? 

General  Zwicker.  I  read  the  news  releases. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  71 

The  Chairman,  And  the  news  releases  were  to  the  effect  that  he  had  refused 
to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist,  and  that  there  was  evidence  that  he  had 
attended  Communist  leadership  schools.  It  was  on  all  the  wire  service  stores ; 
was  it  not?    You  knew  generally  what  he  was  here  for  ;  did  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  indeed. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  knew  generally  that  he  had  refused  to  tell  whether 
he  was  a  Communist;  didn't  you? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  whether  he  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a 
Communist. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  commanding  officer  there? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  the  commanding  general. 

The  Chairman.  When  an  officer  appears  before  a  committee  and  refuses  to 
answer,  would  you  not  read  the  story  rather  carefully? 

General  Zwicker.  I  read  the  press  releases. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  General,  you  knew,  did  you  not,  that  he  appeared  before 
the  committee  and  refused,  on  the  grounds  of  the  fifth  amendment,  to  tell  about 
all  of  his  Communist  activities?    You  knew  that,  didn't  you? 

General  Zwicker.  I  knew  everything  that  was  in  the  press. 

The  Chairman.  Don't  be  coy  with  me,  General. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  being  coy,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  that  general  picture? 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  I  remember  reading  in  the  paper  that  he  had  taken 
refuge  in  the  fifth  amendment  to  avoid  answering  questions  before  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  About  communism? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  too  certain  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  have  enough  interest  in  the 
case.  General,  the  case  of  this  major  who  was  in  your  command  to  get  some 
idea  of  what  questions  he  had  refused  to  answer?     Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  that  is  not  putting  it  quite  right,  Mr.  Chairman, 

The  Chairman.  You  put  it  right,  then. 

General  Zwicker.  I  have  great  interest  in  all  of  the  officers  of  my  command, 
with  whatever  they  do. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  stick  to  fifth-amendment  Communists,  now.  Let's  stick 
to  him.     You  told  us  you  read  the  press  releases. 

General  Zwicker.  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  But  now  you  indicate  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  refused 
to  tell  about  his  Communist  activities.     Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker,  I  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  for  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about  his 
Communist  activities? 

General  Zwicker.  Specifically,  I  don't  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  an.v  idea? 

General  Zwicker.  Of  course  I  had  an  idea. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  think  he  was  called  down  here  for? 

General  Zwicker.  For  that  specific  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  knew  that  those  were  the  questions  he  was  asked, 
did  you  not?  General,  let's  try  and  be  truthful.  I  am  going  to  keep  you  here  as 
long  as  you  keep  hedging  and  hemming. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  hedging. 

The  Chairman.  Or  hawing. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  hawing,  and  I  don't  like  to  have  anyone  impugn 
my  honesty,  whicli  you  just  about  did. 

The  Chairman.  Either  your  honesty  or  your  intelligence ;  I  can't  help  im- 
pugning one  or  the  other,  when  you  tell  us  that  a  major  in  your  command 
who  was  known  to  you  to  have  been  before  a  Senate  committee,  and  of  whom 
you  read  the  press  releases  very  carefully — to  now  have  you  sit  here  and  tell 
us  that  you  did  not  know  whether  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about 
Communist  activities.  I  had  seen  all  the  press  releases,  and  they  all  dealt  with 
that.  So  when  you  do  that.  General,  if  you  will  pardon  me.  I  cannot  help 
but  question  either  your  honesty  or  your  intelligence,  one  or  the  other.  I  want  to 
be  frank  with  you  on  that. 

Now,  is  it  your  testimony  now  that  at  the  time  you  read  the  stories  about 
Major  Peress,  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  had  refused  to  answer  questions 
before  this  committee  about  his  Communist  activities? 

General  Zwickehj.  I  am  sure  I  had  tliat  impression. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  aware  that  the  major  was  being  given  an  honor- 
able discharge  *  *  *. 


72  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  CHAirMAN.  Did  you  also  read  the  stories  ahont  my  lettefto  Secretary 
of  the  Array  Stevens  in  \vhich  I  requested  or,  rather,  suggested  that  this  man  be 
court-martialed,  and  that  anyone  that  protected  him  or  covered  up  for  him 
be  court-martialed? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chaikman.  That  appeared  in  the  papers  on  Sunday  and  Monday;  right? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  At  least,  it  appeared  before  he  got  his  honorable  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  know  that  that  was  true,  either,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  any  event,  you  saw  it  in  a  current  paper;  did  you? 

General  Zwicker.  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  didn't  see  the  story  later.  So  that  at  the  time  he  was 
discharged,  were  you  then  aware  of  the  fact  that  I  had  suggested  a  court- 
martialfor  him  and  for  whoever  got  him  special  consideration? 

General  Zwicker.  If  the  time  jibes,  I  was. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  aware  that  he  was  being  given  a  discharge  on 
February  2?    In  other  words,  the  day  he  was  discharged ;  were  you  aware  of  it? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  ordered  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  The  Department  of  tlie  Army. 

The  Chairman.  Who  in  the  Department? 

General  Zwicker.  That  I  can't  answer. 

Mr.  CoHN.  That  isn't  a  security  matter? 

General  Zwicker.  No.    I  don't  know.    Excuse  me. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Who  did  you  talk  to?    You  talked  to  somebody? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  CoHN.  How  did  you  know  he  should  be  discharged? 

General  Zwicker.  You  also  have  a  copy  of  this.  I  don't  know  why  you  asked 
me  for  it.  This  is  the  order  under  which  he  was  discharged,  a  copy  of  that 
order. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  minute. 

You  are  referring  to  an  order  of  January  19. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  sure,  sir.    Just  a  moment. 

The  Chairman.  January  18.  Will  you  tell  me  whether  or  not  you  were  at  all 
concerned  about  the  fact  that  this  man  was  getting  an  honorable  discharge  after 
the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Investigating  Committee  had  suggested  to  the  De- 
partment of  the  Army  that  he  be  court-martialed?  Did  that  give  you  any 
concern  ? 

General  Zwicker.  It  may  have  concerned  me,  but  it  could  not  have  changed 
anything  that  was  done  in  carrying  out  this  order. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  any  steps  to  have  him  i-etained  until  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Army  could  decide  whether  he  should  be  court-martialed? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  you  should? 

G  'ueral  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  have  taken  such  steps? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  there  is  nothing  you  could  have  done;  is  that 
your  statement? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  my  opinion. 

IVIr.  Rainvtli.e.  May  I  interrupt  a  minute?  Doesn't  that  order  specifically 
state  that  this  is  subject  to  your  check  as  to  whether  he  is  in  good  health  and 
can  be  discharged? 

General  Zwicker.  May  I  read  it? 

Mr.  Rainville.  I  read  the  order.    It  is  in  there. 

G?neral  Zwicker.  Paragraph  5  of  this  order  states: 

"Officer  will  not  be  separated  prior  to  determination  that  he  is  physically  quali- 
fied for  separation  by  your  headquarters." 

Mr.  Raixville.  That  is  a  decision  that  you  must  make? 

General  Zwicker.  Not  me  personally.    My  medical  oflBcers. 

Mr.  Raixville.  But  he  would  report  to  you.  He  would  not  make  the  decision 
without  giving  you,  the  commanding  general,  the  order  for  final  verification? 

General  Zwicker.  It  would  not  be  necessary.  If  something  were  found  wrong 
physically  with  the  man,  he  would  be  retained. 

Mr.  Rainville.  He  would  report  to  you? 

General  Zwicker.  No.    He  would  be  retained. 

Mr.  Rainville.  It  would  be  automatic,  and  you  would  not  have  to  sign  any- 
thing? •      . 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  73 

.  General  Zwicker.  I  would  not  personally,  no.  The  medical  officer  would  make 
such  a  report. 

Mr.  Raikville.  But  there  was  somebody  in  your  outfit  who  could  say,  "This 
man  can  go  out  or  can't  go  out,"  and  that  was  the  doctor? 

G?neral  Zwicker.  He  could  not  keep  him  in  if  he  were  physically  qualified  for 
separation. 

Mr.  Rainville.  But  he  could  say  he  couldn't  go  out,  so  that  there  was  discretion 
within  that  90day  period. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  this  question :  If  this  man,  after  the  order  came 
up,  after  the  order  of  the  18th  came  up,  prior  to  his  getting  an  honorable  dis- 
charge, were  guilty  of  some  crime — let  us  say  that  he  held  up  a  bank  or  stole  an 
automobile — and  you  heard  of  that  the  day  before — let's  say  you  heard  of  it  the 
same  day  that  you  heard  of  my  letter — could  you  then  have  taken  steps  to  pre- 
vent his  discharge,  or  would  he  have  automatically  been  discharged? 

General  Zavicker.  I  would  have  definitely  taken  steps  to  prevent  discharge. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  if  you  found  that  he  was  guilty  of  improper 
conduct,  conduct  unbecoming  an  officer,  we  will  say,  then  you  would  not  have 
allowed  the  honorable  discharge  to  go  through  ;  would  you? 

General  Zwicker.  If  it  were  outside  the  directive  of  this  order? 

The  Chairman.  Well,  yes ;  let's  say  it  were  outside  the  directive. 

General  Zwicker.  Then  I  certainly  would  never  have  discharged  him  until  that 
part  of  the  case 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  say  he  went  out  and  stole  $50  the  night  before. 

General  Zuicker.  He  wouldn't  have  been  discharged. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  stealing  $jO  is  more  serious  than  being  a  traitor 
to  the  country  as  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy? 

General  Zwicker.  That,  sir,  was  not  my  decision. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  if  you  learned  that  he  stole  $50,  you  would  have  pre- 
vented his  discharge.  You  did  learn  something  much  more  serious  than  that. 
You  learned  that  he  had  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist.  You 
learned  that  the  chairman  of  a  Senate  committee  suggested  that  he  be  court- 
marshaled.  And  you  say  if  he  had  stolen  $r)0  he  would  not  have  gotten  the 
honorable  discharge.  But  merely  being  a  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy, 
and  the  chairman  of  the  committee  asking  that  he  be  court-martialed,  would 
not  give  you  grounds  for  holding  up  his  discharge.     Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwickek.  Under  the  terms  of  this  letter,  that  is  correct,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  That  letter  says  nothing  about  stealing  $50,  and  it  does  not 
say  anything  about  being  a  Communist.  It  does  not  say  anything  about  his 
appearance  before  our  committee.  He  appeared  before  our  committee  after  that 
order  was  made  out. 

Do  you  think  you  sound  a  bit  ridiculous.  General,  when  you  say  that  for  $50, 
you  would  prevent  his  being  discharged,  but  for  being  a  part  of  the  conspiracy 
to  destroy  this  country  you  could  not  prevent  his  discharge? 

General  Zwickek.  I  did  not  say  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  go  over  that.  You  did  say  if  you  found  out  he  stole  $50 
the  night  before,  he  would  not  have  gotten  an  honorable  discharge  the  next 
morning? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  learn,  did  you  not,  from  the  newspaper  reports,  that 
this  man  was  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  or  at  least  that  there  was  strong 
evidence  that  he  was?  Didn't  you  think  that  was  more  serious  than  the  theft 
Qf  $50? 

General  Zwicker.  He  has  never  been  tried  for  that,  sir,  and  there  was  evidence, 

Mr.  Chairman 

,  The  Chairman.  Don't  you  give  me  that  doubletalk.     The  $50  case,  that  he  had 
stolen  the  night  belore,  he  has  not  been  tried  for  that. 
;   General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct.     He  didn't  steal  it  yet. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  wait  until  he  was  tried  for  stealing  the  $50  before 
you  prevented  his  honorable  discharge? 
,  General  Zwicker.  P^ither  tried  or  exonerated. 

,  ,  The  Chairman.  You  would  hold  up  the  discharge  until  he  was  tried  or  ex- 
onerated? 

.    General  Zwicker.  For  stealing  the  $50;  yes. 

.  The  Chairman.  But  if  you  heard  that  this  man  was  a  traitor — in  other 
words,  instead  of  hearing  that  he  had  stolen  $50  from  the  corner  store,  let's 
say  you  heard  that  he  was  a  traitor,  he  belonged  to  the  Communist  conspiracy ; 
that  a  Senate  committee  had  the  sworn  testimony  to  that  effect.  Then  would 
you  hold  up  his  discharge  until  he  was  either  exonerated  or  tried? 


74  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

General  Z wicker.  I  am  not  going  to  answer  that  question,  I  don't  believe, 
the  way  you  want  it,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  just  want  you  to  tell  me  the  truth. 

General  Zwicker.  Of  all  of  the  evidence  or  anything  that  had  been  presented 
to  me  as  commanding  general  of  Camp  Kilmer,  I  had  no  authority  to  retain 
him  in  the  service. 

Mr.  Williams,  It  says  "on"  here — "on  all  of  the  evidence."  I 
think  it  changes  the  meaning. 

Mr.  CiiADWicK.  I  will  read  it  as  it  is  here — if  it  involves  a  correc- 
tion I  am  sorry  I  said  it  wrong. 

On  all  of  the  evidence  or  anything  that  had  been  presented  to  me  as  com- 
manding general  of  Camp  Kilmer,  I  had  no  authority  to  retain  him  in  the 
service. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  if  you  had  heard  that  he  had  stolen  $50,  then 
you  could  order  him  retained.  But  when  you  heard  that  he  was  part  of  the 
Communist  conspiracy,  that  subsequent  to  the  time  the  orders  were  issued  a 
Senate  committee  took  the  evidence  under  oath  that  he  was  part  of  the  con- 
spiracy, you  say  that  would  not  allow  you  to  hold  up  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  was  never  officially  informed  by  anyone  that  he  was  part 
of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  Mr.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  let's  see  now.  You  say  that  you  were  never  officially 
informed? 

General  Zwicker.  No. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  heard  that  he  had  stolen  $50  from  someone  down  the 
street,  if  you  did  not  hear  it  officially,  then  could  you  hold  up  his  discharge? 
Or  is  there  some  peculiar  way  you  must  hear  it? 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  so,  yes,  sir,  until  I  was  satisfied  that  he  had  or 
hadn't,  one  way  or  the  other. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  need  any  oflQcial  notification  so  far  as  the  50 
bucks  is  concerned? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  say  insofar  as  the  Communist  conspiracy  is  con- 
cerned, you  need  an  official  notification? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir ;  because  I  was  acting  on  an  official  order,  having 
precedence  over  that. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  $50?  If  one  of  your  men  came  in  a  half  hour 
before  he  got  his  honorable  discharge  and  said,  "General,  I  just  heard  down- 
town from  a  police  officer  that  this  man  broke  into  a  store  last  night  and  stole 
$50,"  you  would  not  give  him  an  honorable  discharge  until  you  had  checked 
the  case  and  found  out  whether  that  was  true  or  not ;  would  you? 

General  Zwicker.  I  would  exx)ect  the  authorities  from  downtown  to  inform 
me  of  that  or,  let's  say,  someone  in  a  iwsition  to  suspect  that  he  did  it. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  say  one  of  the  trusted  privates  in  your  command  came 
in  to  yon  and  said,  "General,  I  was  just  downtown,  and  I  have  evidence  that 
Major  Peress  broke  into  a  store  and  stole  $50."  You  wouldn't  discharge  him 
until  you  had  checked  the  facts,  seen  whether  or  not  the  private  was  telling  the 
truth,  and  seen  whether  or  not  he  had  stolen  the  $50? 

General  Zwicker.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  would.  I  would  make  a  check,  cer- 
tainly, to  check  the  story. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  tell  us.  General,  why  $50  is  so  much  more  important 
to  you  than  being  part  of  the  conspiracy  to  destroy  a  Nation  which  you  are 
sworn  to  defend? 

General  Zwicker.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not.  and  you  know  that  as  well  as  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  I  certainly  do.  That  is  why  I  cannot  understand  you  sitting 
there.  General,  a  general  in  the  Array,  and  telling  me  that  you  could  not,  would 
not,  hold  up  his  discharge  having  received  information 

General  Zwicker.  I  could  not  hold  up  his  discharge. 

The  Chairman.  Why  could  you  not  do  it  in  the  case  of  an  allegation  of  mem- 
bership in  a  Communist  conspiracy,  where  you  could  if  you  merely  heard  some 
private's  word  that  he  had  stolen  $50? 

General  Zwicker.  Because,  Mr.  Senator,  any  information  that  appeared  in  the 
press  or  any  releases  was  well  known  to  me  and  well  known  to  plenty  of  other 
people  long  prior  to  the  time  that  you  ever  called  this  man  for  investigation, 
and  there  were  no  facts  or  no  allegations,  nothing  presented  from  the  time  that 
he  appeared  before  your  first  investigation  that  was  not  apparent  prior  to  that 
time. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  75 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  as  you  sat  here  this  morning  and  listened  to 
the  testimony  you  heard  nothing  new? 

Mr.  CoHN.  Nothing  substantially  new? 

General  Zwickek.  I  don't  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  all  of  these  facts  were  known  at  the  time  he  was 
ordered  to  receive  an  honorable  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  they  are  all  on  record  ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think.  General,  that  anyone  who  is  responsible  for 
giving  an  honorable  discharge  to  a  man  who  has  been  named  under  oath  as  a 
member  of  the  Communist  conspiracy  should  himself  be  removed  from  the 
military? 

General  Zwickee.  You  are  speaking  of  generalities  now,  and  not  on  specifics — 
is  that  right,  sir,  not  mentioning  about  any  one  particular  person? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  right. 

General  Zwicker.  I  have  no  brief  for  that  kind  of  person,  and  if  there  exists 
or  has  existed  something  in  the  system  that  permits  that,  I  say  that  that  is  wrong. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  system.  I  am  asking  you  this 
question,  General,  a  very  simple  question :  Let's  assume  that  John  Jones,  who 
is  a  major  in  the  United  States  Army 

General  Zwicker.  A  what,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Let's  assume  that  John  Jones  is  a  major  in  the  United  States 
Army.  Let's  assume  that  there  is  sworn  testimony  to  the  effect  that  he  is  part 
of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  has  attended  Communist  leadership  schools.  Let's 
assume  that  Maj.  John  Jones  is  under  oath  before  a  committee  and  says,  "I 
cannot  tell  you  the  truth  about  these  charges  because,  if  I  did,  I  fear  that  might 
tend  to  incriminate  me."  Then  let's  say  that  General  Smith  was  responsible 
for  this  man  receiving  an  honorable  discharge,  knowing  these  facts.  Do  you 
think  that  General  Smith  should  be  removed  from  the  military,  or  do  you  think 
he  should  be  kept  on  in  it? 

General  Zwicker.  He  should  be  by  all  means  kept  if  he  were  acting  under 
competent  orders  to  separate  that  man. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  say  he  is  the  man  who  signed  the  orders.  Let  us  say 
General  Smith  is  the  man  who  originated  the  order. 

General  Zwicker.  Originated  the  drder  directing  his  separation? 

The  Chairman.  Directing  his  honorable  discharge. 

General  Zwicker.  Well,  that  is  pretty  hypothetical. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  pretty  real,  General. 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  on  one  point,  yes.  I  mean,  on  an  individual,  yes. 
But  you  know  that  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  people  being  separated 
daily  from  our  Army. 

The  Chairman.  General,  you  understand  my  question 

General  Zwicker.  Maybe  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  are  going  to  answer  it 

General  Zwicker.  Repeat  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  repeat  it. 

(The  question  referred  to  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  not  a  question  for  me  to  decide.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  it.  General.  You  are  an  em- 
ployee of  the  people. 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  a  rather  important  job.  I  want  to  know  how  you 
feel  about  getting  rid  of  Communists. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  all  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  You  will  answer  that  question,  unless  you  take 
the  fifth  amendment.  I  do  not  care  how  long  we  stay  here,  you  are  going  to 
answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Do  you  mean  how  I  feel  toward  Communists? 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  exactly  what  I   asked  you.   General ;   nothing  else.    \\  /■ 
And  anyone  with  the  brains  of  a  5-year-old  child  can  understand  that  question.  ,  \(^ 

The  reporter  will  read  it  to  you  as  often  as  you  need  to  hear  it  so  that  you'^~'' 
can  answer  it,  and  then  you  will  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Start  it  over,  please. 

(The  question  was  reread  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  I  do  not  think  he  should  be  removed  from  the  military. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  General,  you  should  be  removed  from  any  command. 

Any  man  who  has  been  given  the  honor  of  being  promoted  to  general  and  who 

says,  "I  will  protect  another  general  who  protected  Communists,"  is  not  fit  to 

wear  that  uniform.  General.     I  think  it  is  a  tremendous  disgrace  to  the  Army  to 

52461 — 54 6 


76  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

have  this  sort  of  thing  given  to  the  public.  I  intend  to  give  it  to  them.  I  have 
a  duty  to  do  that.  I  intend  to  repeat  to  the  press  exactly  what  you  said.  So 
you  know  that.     You  will  be  back  here,  General. 

Do  you  know  who  initiated  the  order  for  the  honorable  discharge  of  this 
major? 

General  Zwicker.  As  a  person,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  No ;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  tried  to  find  out? 

General  Zwicker.  No  ;  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  discussed  that  matter  with  Mr.  Adams? 

General  Zwicker.  As  a  person,  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  discuss  it  with  him  other  than  as  a  person? 

General  Zwicker.  I  mean  as  an  individual.    This  is  a  Dspartmeut  of  the  Army 
order. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  tried  to  find  out  who  is  responsible? 

General  Zwicker.  Who  signed  this  order? 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  responsible  for  the  order? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  curious? 

'General  Zwicker.  Frankly,  no. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  fully  satisfied  then,  when  you  got  the  order  to  give 
an  honorable  diecharge  to  this  Communist  major? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question. 

(The  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was. 

Mr.  Cohn.  General,  I  have  just  1  or  2  questions. 

Ihe  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  one  question. 

In  other  words,  you  think  it  is  proper  to  give  an  honorable  discharge  to  a  man 
known  to  be  a  Communist? 

General  Zwicker.  No ;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Why  do  you  think  it  is  proper  in  this  case?  .1 

General  Zwicker.  Because  I  was  orderecf  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  anything  that  you  are  ordered  to  do,  you  think 
is  proper? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct.    Anything  that  I  am  ordered  to  do  by  higher 
authority,  I  must  accept. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  the  higher  authority  would  be  guilty  of  im- 
proper conduct? 

General  Zwicker.  It  is  conceivable. 

T'e  Chairman.  Do  you  think  they  are  guilty  of  improper  conduct  here? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  their  judge,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  to  order  the  honorable  discharge  for  a  Commu- 
nist major  was  improper  conduct? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  it  was  improper  procedure,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  is  improper? 

Mr.  Cohn.  General,  I  just  want  to  ask  you  this:  Peress  was  discharged  on 
February  2,  which  was  a  Tuesday. 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Cohn.  He  appeared  before  the  committee  on  Saturday^     On  Monday  or 
Tuesday,  did  you  speak  to  anybody  in  the  Department  of  the  Army  in  Wash- 
ingtf  n,  telephonically,  about  the  Peress  case?     On  Monday  or  Tuesday? 
-~"  General  Zwicker.  Let  me  think  a  minute. 

'    It  is  possible  that  I  called  First  Army  to  inform  them  that  Peress  had  changed 
his  mind  and  desired  a  discharge  as  soon  as  possible. 

M".  Cohn.  Who  would  you  have  told  in  the  First  Army?     Who  would  you 
call?     G-2,  or  General  P>urre.ss? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  think  in  that  case  I  would  call  General  Burress. 

Mr.  CoHN.  General  Seabree? 

General  Zwicker.  No.     It  would  have  been  G-1,  or  Dei>uty  Chief  of  Staff. 

:Mr.  Cohn.  Who  is  that? 

General  Zwicker.  General  Gurney. 

P^Ir.  Cohn.  You  don't  remember  which  one  it  was? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  that  I  called. 

Mr.  Cohn.  D'd  you  talk  to  Mr.  Adams  in  those  days? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  77 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Mr.  Adams  before  yesterday?  You  recall 
whether  or  not  you  spoke  to  him. 

General  Zwicker.  I  know  Mr.  Adams,  yes.  There  was  one  call,  but  I  think 
that  came  from  a  member  of  your  committee,  from  Washington,  requesting  that 
this  man  appear  before  your  committee  first. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  question.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Adams 
before  yesterday? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall.     I  don't  believe  so,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  to  anyone  in  Washington? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir,  about  this  case. 

The  Chairman.  Within  the  week  preceding  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  at  any  time  ever  object  to  this  man  being  honorably 
discharged? 

General  Zwicker.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  on  the  grounds  of  this  Executive  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer.     That  is  a  personnel  matter. 

General  Zwicker.  I  shall  still  respectfully  decline  to  answer  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  take  any  steps  which  would  have  aided  him  in 
continuing  in  the  military  after  you  knew  that  he  was  a  Communist? 

General  Zwicker.  That  would  have  aided  him  in  continuing,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwickeb.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  do  anything  instrumental  in  his  obtaining  his 
promotion  after  knowing  that  he  was  a  fifth-amendment  case? 
•    General  Zwickek.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  object  to  his  being  promoted? 

General  Zwickeir.  I  had  no  opportunity  to,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  enter  any  objection  to  the  promotion  of  this 
man  under  your  command? 

General  Zwicker.  I  had  no  opportunity  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not ;  is  that  correct? 

General  Zwickbhj.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  refuse  to  tell  us  whether  you  objected  to  his  obtaining 
jan  honorable  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  believe  that  is  quite  the  way  the  question  was 
phrased  before. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  answer  it  again,  then". 

General  Zwicker.  I  respectfully  request  that  I  not  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer. 

General  Zwicker.  Under  the  same  authority  as  cited  before,  I  cannot  answer  it. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  anybody  on  your  staff.  General — Colonel  Brown  or  anyone 
"in  G-2 — communicate  with  the  Department  of  the  Army  on  February  1  or 
Pebruarv  2?     In  other  words,  in  connection  with  the  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  know,  but  I  don't  believe  so. 

IMr.  CoHN.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  no? 

General  Zwicker.  No. 
■  Mr.  CoHN.  In  other  words,  on  .January  18,  1954,  you  received  a  direction  from 
the  Secretary,  signed  by  the  Adjutant  GeTieral,  I  assume  that  is  General  Bergin, 
telling  yon  to  give  this  man  an  honorable  discharge  from  the  Army  at  any  prac- 
ticable date,  depending  on  his  desire,  but  in  no  event  later  than  90  days ;  that 
that  was  the  order,  and  you  had  nothing  from  the  order  to  change  that  order 
in  view  of  his  testimony  before  the  committee;  and  therefore,  when  the  man 
.came  in  and  wanted  an  honorable  discharge,  you  felt  under  this  order  compelled 
to  give  it  to  him  as  a  decision  that  had  been  made  by  the  Adjutant  General. 
Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  corrrect. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  you  received  no  additional  words  from  the  Adjutant  General 
on  February  1  or  February  2,  and  before  you  gave  the  discharge  you  did  not 
call  and  say,  "In  view  of  all  of  this,  and  his  testimony  on  Saturday,  and  Senator 
McCarthy's  request  for  a  court-martial,  this  man  is  in  here  now,  and  is  that  all 
right?"     You  never  made  any  such  call? 

General  Zwicker.  No;  I  did  not. 
"  .  Mr.  Rainville.  General.  I  think  at  one  place  there  you  said  he  changed  his 
"request  to  an  immediate  discharge?  "  '     ' 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 


78  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Rainville.  Then  he  had  previously  objected  to  the  discharge  or  at  least 
he  wanted  the  full  90  daysV 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir.  He  requested  to  be  discharged  on  the  31st  of 
March,  I  think,  which  would  make  it  60  days  from  receipt,  rather  than  the  full 
90.  He  did  not  ask  for  the  full  90,  but  he  asked  for  what  amounted  to  60  days, 
2  months. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Then  he  came  in  as  soon  as  he  testified,  and  asked  for  an  imme- 
diate discharge  and  it  was  processed  routinely? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Rainviixe.  But  you  never  thought  it  necessary  after  he  appeared  before 
the  committee  or  when  he  made  that  request  to  discuss  his  appearance  before 
the  committee  with  him? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Rainville.  My  question  is  this :  After  he  appeared  before  the  committee 
and  he  was  still  a  member  of  your  command,  even  though  he  was  on  separation, 
you  didn't  ask  him  to  come  in  and  report  what  he  testified  to? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Rainville.  And  you  didn't  think  it  was  necessary  when  he  came  in  and 
asked  for  an  immediate  discharge  instead  of  60  days  to  ask  him  what  transpired 
so  as  to  get  some  kind  of  an  idea  as  to  why  he  wanted  it  immediately,  or  why- 
he  is  in  a  rush  to  get  out  now  instead  of  taking  the  60  days  that  he  wanted 
before  that? 

General  Zwicker.  That  was  beyond  my  ijrerogative.     I  did  not. 

Mr.  Rainville.  As  an  officer  of  your  command,  certainly  what  we  usually 
call  the  old  man's  privilege  there,  prerogative,  they  may  ask  that  sort  of  question, 
and  so  forth,  so  long  as  he  is  one  of  your  command.     But  you  didn't  do  it? 

General  Zwicker.  No.  He  told  me  he  wanted  to  be  released,  and  I  said, 
"All  right." 

Mr.  Jones.  General  did  the  counsel  of  the  Army  advise  you  not  to  discuss 
the  Peress  ca.se? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

Mr.  Jones.  He  did  not  advise  you? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  advise  you? 

General  Zwicker.  No  one. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  and  Mr.  Adams  talk  about  yesterday? 

General  Zwicker.  Mr.  Adams  and  I  talked  about  the  various  procedures  of 
prior  meetings  such  as  this.     He  tried  to  indicate  what  I  might  expect. 

Mr.  Jones.  Did  Mr.  Adams  advise  anyone  not  to  discuss  the  Peress  case  to 
this  committee? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry.     He  did  not  advise  me. 

Mr.  Jones.  I  mean  to  your  knowledge,  did  he  advise  any  other  person? 

General  Zwicker.  To  my  knowledge  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Jones.  General,  what  is  .vour  considered  opinion  of  this  order  here  for- 
bidding you  to  assist  this  committee  in  exposing  the  Communist  conspiracy  in 
the  Army? 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  I  cannot  answer  that,  because  it  is  signed  by  the 
President.     The  President  says  don't  do  it  and  therefore  I  don't. 

Mr.  Jones.  What  is  your  considered  opinion  of  that  order?  You  see  now, 
here  is  a  perfectly  good  example  of  a  Communist  being  promoted  right  in  the 
I'anks,  all  because  of  this  Executive  order  here,  in  many  respects,  where  we 
couldn't  get  at  these  things  earlier.  What  is  your  considered  opinion  of  an 
order  of  that  nature? 

General  Zwicke^i.  I  won't  answer  that,  because  I  will  not  criticize  my  Com- 
mander in  Chief. 

The  Chairman.  General,  you  will  return  for  a  public  session  at  10 :  30  Tuesday 
morning. 

General  Zwicker.  This  coming  Tuesday? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  Here? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  At  what  time? 

The  Chairman.  10 :  30.  In  the  meantime,  in  accordance  with  the  order 
which  you  claim  forbids  you  the  right  to  discuss  this  case,  you  will  contact 
the  proper  authority  who  can  give  you  permission  to  tell  the  committee  the 
truth  about  the  case  before  you  appear  Tuesday,  and  request  permission  to  be 
allowed  to  tell  us  the  truth  about  the 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  that  is  not  my  prerogative,  either. 


HEARIXGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  79 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  do  it. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry,  sir,  I  will  not  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

General  Zwicker.  If  you  care  to  have  me,  I  will  cite  certain  other  portions 
of  this. 

The  Chairman.  You  need  cite  nothing.     You  may  step  down. 

(Whereupon,  at  5:15  p.  m.,  the  committee  was  recessed,  subject  to  the  call 
of  the  Chair.) 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Cliairman 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case  (continuing).  In  view  of  the  fact  that  one  of  the 
amendments  referred  to  the  committee  was  the  one  by  Senator  Bush, 
which  proposes  certain  rules  governing  committee  conduct,  I  think 
we  ought  to  have  some  identification  of  Mr,  Rainville  and  Mr.  Jones, 
for  the  purposes  of  the  record.  To  my  knowledge  they  were  not 
members  of  the  committee,  and  I  do  not  know  who  they  were,  and  for 
the  record  I  think  they  should  be  identified  as  to  who  they  were. 
They  apparently  participated  in  the  interrogation. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  have  counsel  make  that  identification,  if  it 
is  possible,  from  the  record. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  read,  Mr.  Chairman,  from  the  covering  page  of 
the  transcript  as  follows : 

Present:  Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  Republican,  Wisconsin;  present  also: 
Roy  M.  Cohn,  chief  counsel ;  Daniel  G.  Buckley,  assistant  counsel ;  Harold  Rain- 
ville, administrative  assistant  to  Senator  Dirksen ;  Robert  Jones,  administra- 
tive assistant  to  Senator  Potter ;  and  James  N.  Juliana,  investigator. 

Is  that  the  matter  that  you  had  in  mind.  Senator  ? 

Senator  Case.  Yes. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  might  suggest,  if  I  may,  sir 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams  (continuing).  Since  that  stipulation  has  been  of- 
fered in  the  record,  perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  stipulate  that  Mr. 
Eainville  and  Mr.  Jones  were  attending  in  lieu  of  the  respective  Sena- 
tors for  whom  they  worked,  who  were  otherwise  engaged  on  thaf. 
occasion,  which  is  the  fact. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Williams,  it  is  my  recollection  from  other  ma- 
terial that  that  is  true,  but  I  do  not  have  that  information  here.  I 
believe  it  to  be  true. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  would  be  the  probability. 

The  Chair  will  rule  that  the  committee  will  take  judicial  notice  of 
the  record  which  has  just  been  producBd. 

Have  you  other  matters  there  of  which  the  committee  can  take  judi- 
cial notice,  Mr.  Chadwick  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  have  here  a  certification  from  the  Department  of 
the  Army,  Office  of  the  Adjutant  General,  Washington,  D.  C,  in  the 
following  matter — 


^te 


in  reply  refer  to  AGPI-OD-S  201  Zwicker,  Ralph  W.,  O  16  878  (24  Aug  54)  — 
and  is  as  follows— I  may  say,  sir,  before  I  commence  to  read,  for  Mr. 
Williams'  benefit,   that   on   the   third   page   appears  the   following 
language: 

By  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Army:  John  A.  Klein,  major  general, 
USA,  The  Adjutant  General— 

and  it  bears  the  seal. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  material  contained  in  that  statement  ? 


80  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Chadwick.  It  is  the  official  record  in  the  custody  of  the  Office 
of  the  Adjutant  General,  showing  the  military  record  of  Ralph  W. 
Zwicker. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  take  judicial  notice  of  that,  and 
it  will  be  placed  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Reading  from  the  word  "Certificate"  as  follows: 

I  certify  the  official  records  in  the  custody  of  the  Office  of  The  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral show  that  Ralph  Wise  Zwicker,  O  16  878,  was  born  in  Stoughton,  Wisconsin,, 
on  17  April  1903.  He  attended  the  University  of  Wisconsin  for  approximately 
two  years.  He  was  appointed  cadet  to  the  United  States  Military  Academy  on 
2  .luly  1923.  Upon  graduation  on  14  June  1927  he  was  appointed  a  Second  Lieu- 
tenant of  Infantry,  Regular  Army,  accepted  14  June  1927 ;  promoted  to  First 
Lieutenant,  Regular  Army,  10  July  1933 ;  promoted  to  Captain,  Regular  Army, 
14  June  1937 ;  appointed  Major,  Army  of  the  United  States,  4  February  1941, 
accepted  6  February  1941;  promoted  to  Lieutenant  Colonel,  Army  of  the  United 
States,  23  June  1942  ;  promoted  to  Major,  Regular  Army,  14  June  1944  :  promoted 
to  Colonel,  Army  of  the  United  States,  16  June  1944 ;  promoted  to  Lieutenant 
Colonel,  Regular  Army,  15  July  1948 ;  promoted  to  Colonel,  Regular  Army,  23 
March  1951;  appointed  Brigadier  General,  Army  of  the  United  States,  16  March 
1953. 

He  graduated  from  the  United  States  Military  Academy,  1927 ;  Infantry 
School,  Company  Officers'  Course,  1933 ;  Command  and  General  Staff  School,. 
1942 ;  Naval  War  College,  1945 ;  National  War  College.  1947 :  and  was  awarded 
the  educational  eqiiivalent  to  the  Armed  Forces  Staff  College,  1947. 

General  Zwicker  was  awarded  the  Silver  Star  for  gallantry  in  action,  6  .Tune 
1944:  the  Legion  of  Merit  for  exceptionally  meritorious  conduct  in  the  perform- 
ance of  outstanding  services  during  the  periods  from  28  July  1944,  to  IS  August 
1944,  and  from  30  August  1944,  to  15  October  1944;  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  to  the 
Legion  of  Merit  for  the  period  from  15  October  1944,  to  May  1945 ;  Bronze  Star 
Medal  with  two  Oak  Leaf  Clusters ;  Commendation  Ribbon  with  Metal  Pendant. 
Extracts  of  the  citations  for  these  awards  are  attached. 

His  combat  record  began  in  April  1944  when  he  went  to  Europe  as  Com- 
manding Officer  of  the  3Sth  Infantry  Regiment ;  he  served  in  this  capacity  until 
May  1945 ;  his  commander  said  of  him  during  this  i)eriod :  "Mentally  energetic, 
self-reliant  and  considerate.  He  has  an  exceptionally  pleasing  personality, 
mixes  well  and  inspires  confidence."  From  July  1945,  to  December  1945  he 
attended  the  Naval  War  Collesre,  graduating  with  a  rating  of  "Superior." 
From  January  1946  to  Au.enist  1946  be  was  Assistant  to  the  Assistant  Chief  of 
Staff,  G-3,  Army  Ground  Forces,  Washington,  D.  C.  His  superior  officer  said 
of  him :  "exceptionally  able  and  experienced,  cooperative,  professionally  well 
qualified  for  any  staff  or  command  assignment.  Possesses  good  judgment  and 
commonsense  to  a  marked  degree."  From  September  1946  to  June  1947  he  at- 
tended the  National  War  College,  graduating  with  a  rating  of  "Superior."' 
The  Commandant  of  the  College  said  of  him :  "He  has  shown  special  aptitude 
for  duty  with  highest  combined  or  joint  staffs."  From  .Tune  1947  to  April  1949 
be  was  Chief  of  Organization  Branch.  Organization-Requirements  Group,  Organi- 
zation and  Training  Division,  General  Staff,  United  States  Army,  Department 
of  the  Army,  Washington,  D.  C.  His  superior  officer  said  of  him :  "An  officer 
of  the  highest  type  in  character  and  ability.  Seeks  responsibility,  demonstrates 
Initiative  and  force  in  his  work."  From  April  1949  to  July  1949  he  was  Deputy 
to  the  Special  Assistant  to  the  Chief  of  Staff,  IT.  S.  Army  for  Civilian  Component 
Affairs,  in  the  Office  Chief  of  Staff,  Washington,  D.  C.  His  superior  officer  said 
of  him :  "A  superior,  bisrh  type  officer  with  a  great  deal  of  initiative  and  ability. 
High  sense  of  duty.  Reasons  to  logical  conclusions  and  puts  them  into  effect. 
Has  capacity  for  leadership  and  hi'^h  command  and  is  general  officer  material." 

From  August  1949  to  August  1950  he  was  Deputy  Director,  Operations  and 
Trainin?  Division,  Headquarters,  European  Command.  From  August  19.50  to 
May  1952  he  was  Commanding  Officer.  18th  Infantry  Regiment,  Europe.  His 
commander  said  of  him  :  "An  officer  with  extremely  hi.gh  standards.  Has  a  fine 
background  of  combat  and  staff  experience.  I  consider  him  well  qualified  to  be 
a  general  officer."  From  June  19.52  to  January  1953  be  was  a  member  of  Military 
Faculty  Committee  No.  1.  National  War  College.  His  superior  officer  said  of  him  : 
"He  is  considered  to  be  exceptionally  well  qualified  for  high  command  or  staff 
assignments:  is  fully  qualified  and  is  hierhly  recommended  for  promotion  to 
general  officer  rank."     From   February  1953  to  June  1953  he  was  Assistant 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  81 

Division  Commander,  5th  Infantry  Division,  ludiautown  Gap  IVIilitary  Reserva- 
tion. His  commanding  general  said  of  him  :  "A  superior  general  officer,  in- 
telligent, energetic,  and  extremely  loyal."  From  July  1953  to  August  1954  he 
was  Commanding  General,  Camp  Kilmer,  New  Jersey.  His  superior  officers 
said  of  him :  "Loyal,  dependable,  level  headed  and  mature  in  judgment,"  and 
^'Outstanding  officer,  fine  character  and  integrity." 

General  Zwicker  is  presently  under  transfer  orders  to  Army  Forces,  Far  East, 
for  assignment  within  that  theater,  departing  on  27  September  1954. 
By  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  : 

John  A.  Klein. 
Major  General,  US!A, 
The  Adjutant  General. 
1  Incl. :  Extract  of  Citations. 

There  is  a  note,  "One  enclosure,  extract  of  citations,"  and  the  matter 
is  rendered  under  seaL 

The  extracts  from  the  citations  which  are  referred  to  in  the  order 
are  as  follows : 

Silver  Star:  For  gallantry  in  action  on  the  coast  of  Normandy,  6  Jun  44. 

Bronze  Star  Medal :  The  2d  Inf  Div  was  heavily  engaged  before  Hill  192  in 
Normandy,  France  at  the  time  Col  Zwicker  as.sumed  command  of  the  38th  Inf 
Regt.  His  responsibilities  were  exceedingly  grave,  due  first,  to  the  assumption 
of  command  while  units  were  in  contact ;  secondly,  to  the  fact  that  Germany 
defensive  positions  possessed  high  ground  and  observation.  Nevertheless,  Col. 
Zwicker  capably  directed  combat  operations  and  guided  his  command  in  a  most 
commendable  manner  through  the  campaign  of  Normandy. 

Bronze  Star  Medal :  In  mid-August,  the  2d  Inf  Div  moved  to  Brest  on  the 
Brittany  peninsula  in  France.  The  reduction  of  Brest  involved  detailed  and 
continuous  coordination  of  arms  in  order  to  eliminate  Germany  defensive  posi- 
tions prepared  with  great  skill  over  a  period  of  four  years.  The  38th  Inf  Regt, 
commanded  by  Col  Zwicker,  contributed  materially  to  the  methodical  progress 
which  enforced  surrender  of  the  garrison  on  IS  Sep  1944. 

Bronze  Star  Medal :  For  meritorious  achievement  against  an  armed  enemy 
during  the  period  June  1944  to  May  1945. 

Legion  of  Merit :  The  bitter  fighting  during  the  fall  and  early  winter  in 
Germany  was  followed  by  the  German  counter  offensive  in  December,  which  tem- 
porarily halted  all  forward  progress.  The  enemy  penetration  was  stopped  as 
the  Division  aided  immeasurably  in  holding  the  northern  hinge  of  the  bulge  near 
Camp  d'Elsenborn,  Belgium.  The  hardships  and  long  hours  were  extremely 
wearing  on  physical  strength  and  demanded  utmost  care  to  direct  and  guide 
various  elements  of  the  Division.  Col  Zwicker  capably  coordinated  and  super- 
vised the  joint  efforts  of  both  staff  and  command  during  this  period. 

Army  Commendation  Medal:  For  outstanding  achievement  in  planning  and 
developing  the  organization  of  the  proposed  new  Infantry  Division  (15  Jan  47). 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  cover  the  record  matter  that  the  com- 
mittee decided  to  take  judicial  notice  of,  Mr.  Chadwick? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a  certified  paper,  but  I  would 
like,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  transcribing,  for  the  stenographer  to 
have  it  available  for  checking  purposes  against  his  transcript,  to  be 
returned  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  received  in  evidence  as  exhibit  No.  2. 

(Tlie  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Committee  Exhibit  No.  2" 
and  will  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  committee.) 

Mr.  Chadwick.  That,  sir,  comjirises  our  presentation  on  the  fifth 
point  of  our  evidence  relating  to  Ralph  W.  Zwicker,  general.  United 
States  Army. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  sorry,  I  didn't  understand  what  you  just  said. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  said  that  comprises  all  of  our  presentation  on 
point  5  with  relation  to  Gen.  Ralph  W.  Zwicker. 

I  mean,  however,  it  is  understood  we  have  the  right  to  return  to 
this  subject  before  we  complete  our  entire  case.  That  is  what  I  have 
to  present  at  this  moment  on  that  point. 


82  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  de  Fiiria,  are  you  ready  to  proceed  with  the 
next  matter  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  We  are,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  desire  us  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  advise  you,  Mr.  Williams,  that  counsel  thinks 
that  the  evidence  the  committee  has  gathered  together  on  two  other 
categories  can  be  covered  tomorrow. 

The  report,  or  series  of  reports  rather,  in  the  Army-McCarthy  con- 
troversy have  not  been  examined  by  us  at  all.  Obviously  there  are 
some  matters  referred  to  tliere  that  concern  this  committee  and  which 
have  been  referred  to  us,  so  at  tliis  point  we  will  recess  the  public  hear- 
ing until  tomorrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

Just  a  moment  before  you  leave.  The  committee  will  go  into  execu- 
tive session.  We  have  matters  to  consider,  so  we  will  continue  in 
executive  session. 

Will  our  friends  kindly  leave  the  room  so  that  we  may  go  on  with 
our  meeting? 

(Whereupon,  at  2 :  23  p.  m.,  the  hearing  recessed  to  reconvene 
Thursday,  September  2,  1954,  at  10  a.  m.) 


HEAEINGS  ON  SENATE  EESOLUTION  301 


thursday,  september  2,  1954 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges  Pursuant 

TO  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10 :  05  a.  m.  in  the 
caucus  room.  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Arthur  V.  Watkins 
(chairman)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (presiding) ,  Johnson  of  Colorado  (vice 
chairman),  Stennis,  Carlson,  Case,  and  Ervin, 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel 
to  the  committee:  Guy  de  Furia,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee ;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  member ; 
Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator  Watkins' 
staff  on  loan  to  the  committee ;  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams,  counsel 
to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A.  Neill  and  Brent 
Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume  session. 

Mr.  Chadwick,  will  you  proceed  with  the  presentation  of  the  docu- 
mentary matter  which  the  committee  has  taken  judicial  notice  of  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  will  proceed  with  the  matters 
embraced  within  point  2  of  the  notice  heretofore  given  and  read  into 
the  record : 

Incidents  of  encouragement  of  United  States  employees  to  violate  the  law. 

I  will  read  from  that  notice  the  appropriate  excerpts  from  amend- 
ments offered  to  Senate  Resolution  301  by  several  Senators : 

A.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Fulbright  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res.  301)  to 
censure  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  Mr.  McCarthy,  viz:  "(5)  The  junior  Sena- 
tor from  Wisconsin  openly,  in  a  public  manner  before  nationwide  television, 
invited  and  urged  employees  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  violate 
the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office." 

B.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Morse  to  the  resolution — 

in  question — 

viz:  "(e)  openly  invited  and  incited  employees  of  the  Government  to  violate 
the  law  and  their  oaths  of  office  by  urging  them  to  make  available  information, 
including  classified  information,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  employees  would 
be  of  assistance  to  the  junior  Senator  from  Wisconsin  in  conducting  his  investi- 
gations, even  though  the  supplying  of  such  information  by  the  employee  would 
be  illegal  and  in  violation  of  Presidential  order  and  contrary  to  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  Chief  Executive  under  the  separation-of-powers  doctrine." 

C.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Flanders  to  the  resolution  (S.  Res.  301) 
*  *  *  viz:  "(14)  He  has  publicly  incited  Government  employees  to  violate  their 
security  oaths  and  serve  as  his  personal  informants,  thus  tending  to  break  down 
the  orderly  chain  of  command  in  the  civil  service,  as  well  as  violating  the 
security  provisions  of  the  Government." 

83 


84  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chaii-man 

The  Chairman.  Mr,  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  wonder  if  you  could  furnish  us,  sir,  with  a  copy  of 
the  documentary  evidence  which  Mr.  Chadwick  proposes  to  introduce 
this  morning  so  that  we  might  follow  it  along. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  copies  of  the  documentary  evidence, 
Mr  Chadwick? 

Mr,  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  can  find  separate  copies 
to  be  delivered  to  Mr.  Williams.  I  will  have  to  turn  to  my  assistants 
for  that. 

Senator  Stennis.  Do  you  have  copies  for  the  committee  members? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  copies  for  the  committee? 

Mr.  Chad^vick.  I  am  afraid  we  do  not  have  that  many  copies. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  would  rather  have  a  committee  member  liave  mine, 
if  there  is  any  choice  to  be  made. 

Senator  Stennis,  No.  My  suggestion  was  secondary  to  the  counsel. 
1  think  he  is  entitled  to  the  document. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Johnson.  Surely. 

Senator  Stennis.  Surely. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  if  I  remember  correctly  that  the  material 
will  be  taken  from  the  hearing  records  of  the  Army-McCarthy  con- 
troversy, and  I  assume  that  counsel  has  a  copy  of  that,  and  the  page 
number. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  was  a  pretty  long  controversy,  though.  Senator 
Watkins,  and  I  could  not  carry  it  all  down  here  this  morning. 

The  Chairman,  I  realize  that.    And  I  hope  we  have  copies  for  you. 

Mr,  Chadwick,  I  am  in  difficulty  with  respect  to  this,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, only  for  this  reason.  We  have  our  four  working  trial  briefs  to 
which  I  intended  to  refer,  but  I  relieved  two  of  my  assistants  this 
morning  to  pursue  inquiry  outside.  They  have  their  copies  with 
them.    Mr.  de  Furia  needs  his  copy.    I  have  mine. 

You  understand  the  dilemma  in  which  I  find  myself.  If  you  had 
asked  me  yesterday — please  do  not  think  I  am  criticizing  you — but  if 
vou  had  asked  me  yesterday,  I  would  have  been  better  prepared  on 
this. 

You  can  be  assured,  of  course,  that  we  are  reading  from  the  records 
of  the  committee.    But  that  is  not  very  helpful  to  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  had  four, 
Mr.  Chadwick? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Four  working  copies. 

Mr,  Williams,  May  we  not  have  at  least  one  of  those  so  that  we 
can  follow  the  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  don't  believe  you  understood  me.  Two  of  them 
are  in  the  possession  of  gentlemen  who  are  not  here.  Mr.  de  Furia, 
my  assistant,  must  have  his  copy. 

If  the  chairman  will  indulge  us,  w^e  will  send  a  messenger  imme- 
diately upstairs  to  our  room  to  see  if  we  can  get  these  papers. 

INIr.  Williams.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pause  a  moment  here  while  we  untangle 
this  difficulty. 

(Discussion  off  the  record.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume  session. 


HEARESTGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  85 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  Mr.  Williams 
now  has  copies  of  the  matter,  and  we  can  proceed  in  course. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  the  committee  to  take  judicial  notice  that  the 
Army-McCarthy  hearing  under  Chairman  Mundt  was  public  and  was 
televised  nationally. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  take  such  notice. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  offer  and  read  into  evidence  certain  excerpts  from 
the  transcript  of  the  Army-McCarthy  hearing  before  the  Perma- 
nent Subcommittee  on  Investigations  of  the  Committee  on  Govern- 
ment Operations  on  May  27,  1954,  May  28,  1954,  June  15,  1954,  and 
June  16,  1954,  at  the  following  pages  indicated,  asking  the  committee 
to  take  judicial  notice  thereof. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  the  order. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  suggest  that  the  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy 
should  and  no  doubt  will,  be  accorded  the  right  to  offer  any  other 
relevant  and  material  excerpts  from  such  transcript. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  is  provided  for  and  there  is  no  necessity 
for  notice  to  be  served  upon  Senator  McCarthy.  That,  of  course, 
has  been  the  ruling  and  understanding  of  the  committee  all  along. 
We  want  to  get  all  the  relevant  and  pertinent  evidence,  no  matter 
where  it  leads,  as  long  as  it  will  give  light  on  the  charges  that  are 
before  the  committee. 

We  are  doing  that  for  the  benefit  of  the  Senate  as  well  as  for  the 
members  of  this  particular  select  committee.  You  may  proceed,  Mr. 
Chadwick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  am  about  to  read  from  page  3915,  May  27,  1954, 
in  volume  22.  I  ask  Mr.  Williams  if  that  is  conveniently  at  hand  to 
him. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  CHAD^VICK  (reading)  : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  view  of  Senator  McClellan's  statement 
and  his  request,  I  would  like  to  make  it  clear  that  I  think  that  the  oath  which 
every  person  in  this  Government  takes,  to  protect  and  defend  this  country, 
against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic,  that  oath  towers  far  above  any 
Presidential  secrecy  directive.  And  I  will  continue  to  receive  information  such 
as  I  received  the  other  day.  In  view  of  Senator  IMcClellan's  statement  that  he 
feels  that  it  is  a  crime  for  someone  to  give  me  information  about  traitors  in 
Government,  I  am  duty-bound  not  to  give  the  Senator  the  names  of  those 
informants. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I,^  of  course,  recognize  that  this 
evidence  has  to  be  introduced  piecemeal  from  the  record.  And  I  cer- 
tainly am  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  we  have  the  right  in  the  sense 
to  offer  such  portions  of  the  record  as  we  choose. 

The  Chairman.  So  long  as  it  is  relevant  and  material  to  this  issue. 

Mr.  WiLLL4MS.  Yes,  that  would  be  for  the  Chair  to  decide. 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  make  that  clear  now,  because  we  could 
not  have  just  everything  offered.  I  am  sure  you  would  not  attempt 
to  do  that,  either. 

Mr.  WiLLL^MS.  I  would  not. 

The  thing  that  disturbs  me,  however,  is  that  what  Mr.  Chadwick 
has  just  read  does  not  present  the  full  picture,  and  it  is  almost  out  of 
context,  because  antedating  this  colloquy  which  he  is  reading  there 
is  a  colloquy  which  makes  it  clear  what  Senator  McCarthy  had  refer- 
ence to  when  he  said,  "I  will  continue  to  receive  information  such  as 


86  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

I  received  the  other  day."  And  I  will  have  to  get  the  pagination  for 
the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  If  yon  can  do  that,  Mr.  Williams,  we  would  be  vei*y 
glad  to  put  that  in,  because  I  can  see  very  clearly  that  there  ought  to 
be  enough  of  the  background  so  tJiat  we  would  not  be  taking  the  state- 
ments out  of  context. 

Mr.  WiLLiAMw.  I  have  that  here,  sir.  I  have  the  quote  to  which  I 
have  reference.     It  may  be  that  the  committee 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  submit  it  to  Mr.  Chadwick  and  we  will 
probably  have  it  read  or  take  a  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  can  read  it  in  just  a  sentence — it  is  just  a  sentence 
long — two  sentences. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  page,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  have  not  the  page.  Tliat  is  why  I  want  to  read  it. 
Maybe  we  can  have  some  help  here  in  finding  it. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  would  like  to  notify  those  2  million  Federal  em- 
ployees that  I  feel  it  is  their  duty  to  give  us  any  information  which  they  have 
about  graft,  corruption,  communism,  treason,  and  that  there  is  no  loyalty  to  a 
superior  officer  which  can  tower  above  and  beyond  their  loyalty  to  their  country — 

in  other  words,  from  the  "which  Mr.  Chadwick  has  made''  it  is  not 
clear  what  information  is  referred  to,  but  if  you  read  the  entire  context 
it  becomes  apparent  that  reference  is  made  to  information  on  graft, 
corruption,  communism,  and  treason  in  the  executive  branch  of  the 
Government.  I  feel  that  should  go  in,  and  I  think  that  we  ought  to 
find  that  here  in  this. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  accept  it  on  your  statement.  Was  that 
prior  to  the  material  that  Mr.  Chadwick  was  just  reading — did  that 
occur 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Carlson.  I  have  a  copy  here  of  some  notes,  and  a  letter 
from  Senator  Wayne  Morse  in  which  he  copied  that  quote,  and  that  is 
found  in  transcript  volume  22,  page  3918. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  find  it  now. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment. 

Mr,  Williams,  I  am  advised  by  our  staff  that  the  one  you  just  read 
is  the  next  one. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  see. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  one  is  the  one  that  counsel  for  the  com- 
mittee intended  to  read. 

Mr.  Williams.  Good.  I  think  that  places  this  whole  thing  in 
proper  context. 

The  Chairman.  We  intend  to  do  just  what  you  advised  and  sug- 
gested should  be  done. 

If,  inadvertently,  by  not  covering  the  entire  record,  we  have  left 
anything  out,  we  will  be  only  too  happy,  as  we  advised  you  last  night, 
to  receive  suggestions,  anything  we  can  do  to  help  get  all  the  evidence 
that  is  relevant  and  material  to  the  issues  here. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  we  renew  that  offer  now.  If  you  have  any 
leads  or  any  suggestions  or  any  clues  that  will  help  us  get  evidence  or 
material  relevant  to  these  charges  that  you  think  ought  to  be  in,  for 
the  information  of  the  committee  and  the  United  States  Senate,  of 
course,  for  which  we  are  working,  then  we  will  be  very  glad  to  put 


d 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  87 

the  staff  to  work  on  those  matters,  because  this  is  to  be  an  all-out 
investigation  to  get  all  the  facts,  no  matter  who  they  help  or  hurt. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  be  allowed  a  word  with  Mr. 
Williams  ? 

The  Chaikmax.  Yes. 

Mr.  CHADA\acK.  I  understood  from  you  that  the  matters  which  you 
read  preceded  what  I  had  just  read. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  was  obviously  in  error  on  that,  Mr.  Chadwick, 
because  Senator  Carlson  just  corrected  me  and  said  it  came  3  pages 
later.  But  my  original  position  is  the  same,  that  it  was  part  of  the 
original  context  to  which  he  had  reference  when  he  made  the  statement. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  In  the  next  succeeding  page,  which  I  will  reach  in 
half  a  minute,  is  the  material  to  which  you  refer. 

Mr.  WiLLL^MS.  I  appreciate  that. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  reading, 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission,  I  will  start 
again  with  the  paragraph  I  read  in  order  that  I  may  know  what  the 
continuity  is  here : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  view  of  Senator  McClellan's  statement 
and  his  request,  I  would  like  to  make  it  clear  tliat  I  think  that  the  oath  which 
every  person  in  this  Government  takes,  to  protect  and  defend  this  country, 
against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic,  that  oath  towers  far  above  any  Presi- 
dential secrecy  directive.  And  I  will  continue  to  receive  information  such  as  I 
received  the  otlier  day.  In  view  of  Senator  McClellan's  statement  that  he  feels 
that  it  is  a  crime  for  someone  to  give  me  information  about  traitors  in  Govern- 
ment, I  am  dutybound  not  to  give  the  Senator  the  names  of  those  informants. 

Senator  McClellan.  I  just  want  to  get  it  straight. 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  say  that  tliat  will  be  my  policy.  There  is  no  power 
on  earth  that  can  change  that. 

Again,  I  want  to  compliment  the  individuals  who  have  placed  their  oaths 
to  defend  the  country  against  enemies,  and  certainly  Communists  are  enemies, 
above  and  beyond  any  Presidential  directive.  And  none  of  them — none  of 
them  will  be  brought  before  any  grand  .iury  because  of  any  information  that  I 
give.  If  any  administration  wants  to  indict  me  for  receiving  and  giving  the 
American  people  information  about  conununism,  they  can  just  go  right  ahead 
and  do  the  indicting. 

I  now  read,  Mr.  Chairman,  from  page  3918,  the  hearing  on  May 
27,  1954,  from  volume  22. 

The  Chairman.  Still  speaking  of  the  Army-McCarthy  controversy 
hearings. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Yes,  sir.    These  are  all  applicable  to  that : 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  at  this  point  de.eply  concerned  to  find  my  two  Dem- 
ocrat colleagues  in  effect  notifying  the  2  million  people  who  work  for  this 
Government  that  they  think  it  is  a  crime  for  those  employees  to  give  the  chair- 
man of  an  investigating  committee  evidence  of  Communist  infiltration,  treason. 
I  think  that  will  serve  to  discourage  them.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  would 
like  to  notify  those  2  million  Federal  employees  that  I  feel  it  is  their  duty  to 
give  us  any  information  which  they  have  about  graft,  corruption,  communism, 
treason,  and  that  there  is  no  loyalty  to  a  superior  officer  which  can  tower  above 
and  beyond  their  loyalty  to  their  country.  I  may  say  that  I  hope  the  day  comes 
when  this  administration  notifies  all  Federal  employees  that  any  information 
which  they  have  about  wrongdoing  should  be  given  to  any  congressional  com- 
mittee which  is  empowered  to  take  it. 

I  now  read  from  page  4260  of  the  same  matter,  in  volume  23,  with 
respect  to  the  date  of  May  28,  1954: 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  may  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  have  instructed  a  vast 
number  of  these  employees  that  they  are  dutybound  to  give  me  information 
even  though  some  little  bureaucrat  has  stamped  it  "Secret"  to  protect  himself. 


88  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

From  page  6796  of  tlie  hearing  on  June  15,  1954,  appearing  in  vol- 
ume 34: 

Senator  McCarthy.  IMr.  Carr,  can  yon  think  of  any  reason  why  the  old  Tru- 
man blackout  order  of  1948  should  be  maintained  in  effect  as  of  1954? 

Mr.  Cark.  No,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Just  one  further  question.  If  our  committee  is  to  per- 
form its  function,  it  is  imperative,  is  it  not,  that  every  blackout  order,  re- 
gardless of  whether  it  is  Truman's  or  anyone  else's  be  cancelled  instanter. 

Mr.  Williams-  Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Excuse  me.    Let  me  read 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  let  the  counsel  finish  the  reading. 
Then  I  will  recognize  you. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Just  one  more  line,  sir : 

Mr.  Carr.  I  think  that  is  correct,  sir. 

I  pause. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  listened  with  interest  as  Mr.  Chad- 
wick read  this  last  excerpt  from  the  record,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  not  at  all  germane  to  the  charge  which  was  categorized  under 
count  2,  because,  as  I  understand  the  language  that  has  just  been  read, 
Senator  McCarthy  is  asking  a  witness  as  to  the  advisability  of  chang- 
ing the  directive  of  the  executive  branch.  He  is  not  there  asking  that 
anyone  override  that  directive,  I  do  not  see  how  that  is  germane  to 
the  charge  that  he  urged  employees  not  to  follow  the  directive. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  say  I  do  not  have  a  copy  of  the  material 
read,  and  my  attention  was  diverted  momentarily  from  the  reading. 
So  I  will  ask  Mr.  Chadwick  to  read  it  again. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  The  excerpt  reads  as  f ollow^s : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Carr,  can  you  think  of  any  reason  why  the  old  Truman 
blackout  order  of  1948  should  be  maintained  in  effect  as  of  1954? 
Mr.  Carr.  No,  sir. 

May  I  suggest  that  there  is  a  special  pertinency  in  respect  to  the 
interrogation  from  the  Senator  addressed  to  Mr.  Carr  ? 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  explain  what  it  is? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  My  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Carr  was  associated 
with  the  committee  of  which  Mr.  McCarthy  was  the  chairman. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Carr  was  a  witness. 

Mr,  Williams.  Won't  you  read  the  next  question,  Mr.  Chadwick, 
because  that  demonstrates  the  point  tliat  I  make  here — that  the  ques- 
tion is  rather  directed  to  Mr.  Carr  asking  his  opinion  on  whether  or 
not  it  is  a  good  thing  to  have  that  administrative  or  Executive  order 
in  effect?  It  is  not  the  thought  of  anyone  to  disregard  it.  It  goes 
to  the  wisdom  of  keeping  the  order  in  effect,  which  is  entirely  outside 
the  charge.  I  am  sure  there  is  no  charge  against  Senator  McCarthy 
here  for  having  an  opinion  that  the  Executive  order  is  unwise. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  ask  Mr.  de  Furia  to  respond  to  what  you 
have  said. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  difficulty  here,  of  course,  is  for 
committee  counsel,  which  were  instructed  to  present  all  the  testimony 
in  this  case,  whether  it  bore  one  way  or  bore  the  other  way,  to  desig- 
nate and  read  into  the  record  a  set  of  particular  excerpts  which  would 
be  fair. 

Now,  the  rule  of  evidence,  of  course,  is  that  evidence  may  be  com- 
petent, relevant,  and  material,  and  it  is  admitted  into  the  record. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  89 

How  much  weight  shall  be  given  to  any  particular  part  of  the  evidence 
is  for  the  court,  or,  in  this  case,  for  the  committee. 

We  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  these  questions  and  answers  shed 
some  light  on  the  mental  processes  of  Senator  McCarthy  with  refer- 
ence to  this  particular  problem,  and  we  feel  it  is  evidence  that  the 
committee  should  properly  weigh.  Now,  it  may  be  there  are  other 
pails  of  this  testimony,  there  are  other  sentences,  there  are  other  ques- 
tions, that  should  be  incorporated  in  the  record. 

So  far  as  committee  counsel  is  concerned,  we  have  no  objection  to 
that  whatever,  but  we  think  that  the  committee  should  permit  the 
reading  of  all  these  excerpts  in  a  continuous  fashion,  and  that  will 
give  a  clear  picture  of  what  we  are  trying  to  delineate,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  understand  now  the  counsel's  position.  He  is  not 
offering  this  as  evidence  in  support  of  the  charge  itself  that  there 
was  an  encouragement  of  employees 

The  Chairman.  On  the  other  side,  it  may  show  that  the  charge 
is  groundless,  and  that  is  in  line  with  the  policy  we  have  adopted. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  thought  the  record  should  be  clear  on  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  matter  will  be  received. 

Proceed. 

Mr.  CiiADWiCK.  I  will  now  read  from  page  7013  of  the  hearing  on 
June  16,  1954,  volume  35.    Are  you  ready,  Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Chadwick  (reading)  : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Senator — 

addressing  Senator  McClellan — 

may  I  say  that  the  law  is  very  clear.  Back  in  1912  there  was  a  hassle  pretty 
much  on  the  order  of  what  we  have  today.  At  that  time  my  predecessor,  Sen- 
ator Bob  La  Follette,  Sr.,  introduced  a  bill  which  was  passed.  As  far  as  I  know, 
it  is  still  the  law  today. 

It  provides  that  every  individual  in  civil  service  has  the  right  to  furnish  "in- 
formation to  either  House  of  Congress  or  to  any  committee  or  member  thereof," 
and  that  right  shall  not  be  interfered  with. 

Aside  from  the  reading,  starting  with  the  word  "information"  and 
ending  with  the  word  "thereof"  are  quotation  marks. 
I  read  from  page  7013  continuing : 

Senator  McClellan.  Does  that  not  mean  legal  information?  That  doesn't 
refer  to  someone  taking  a  classified  document  and  passing  it  out. 

Senator  McCarthy.  1  think  you  are  completely  wrong,  Senator.  I  don't 
think  any  Government  employee  can  deny  the  people  the  right  to  know  what  the 
facts  are  by  using  a  rubber  stamp  and  stamping  something  "Secret." 

Senator  McClellan.  This  is  a  legal  question. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  don't  think  it  is  a  close  question  at  all.  I  don't  think 
it  is  even  a  close  question. 

I  read  consecutively  from  the  same  documents  at  page  7014  the 
following : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Senator- 
addressing  Senator  McClellan — 

may  I  make  it  very  clear  that  there  is  no  question  about  it.  Regardless  of  who 
tries  to  sustain  me  or  vice  vei-sa  while  I  am  chairman  of  the  committee  I  will 
receive  all  the  infonnation  I  can  get  about  wrongdoing  in  the  executive  branch. 
I  will  give  that  information  to  the  American  people. 

I  read  from  page  7017 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  say.  Senator — 


90  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Dirksen;  I  supply  the  reference  because  the  record  reads  "Senator." 
[Continuing:] 

May  I  say.  Senator,  I  think  you  have  raised  and  covered  the  point  so  vpell  it 
doesn't  require  any  answer  of  any  kind.  I  personally  feel  that  the  oath  v?hich 
every  individual  takes  to  defend  this  country  against  all  enemies,  foreign  or 
domestic,  places  upon  him  the  heavy  responsibility  to  bring  to  the  Congress 
any  information  of  wrongdoing  where  the  matter  is  not  being  taken  care  of 
properly  by  his  superiors. 

I  may  say,  Senator,  that  I  feel  strongly  that  it  isn't  even  a  close  question. 
I  think  that  oath  to  defend  our  country  against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic, 
towers  above  and  beyond  any  loyalty  you  might  have  to  the  head  of  a  bureau  or 
the  head  of  a  department. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  sorry  to  interrupt,  sir,  but  I  feel  that  in  order 
to  place  that  in  context,  it  is  necessary  to  read  the  one  paragraph  of 
expression  from  Senator  Dirksen  that  appears  just  before  that,  so  we 
will  know  what  position  Senator  McCarthy  herein  is  adopting.  Other- 
wise it  seems  to  be  meaningless. 

I  would  ask  you  just  to  read  that.  I  will  hand  it  over  to  you,  if  you 
will. 

Mr.  Ciiadwick.  We  would  like  to  see  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  rule  that  the  statement  made  by 
Senator  Dirksen  immediately  preceding  the  information  on  the  record, 
the  quotation  that  was  just  read,  should  be  reecived. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  read  the  testimony,  all  the  statement  of  Senator 
Dirksen,  at  page  7017  of  the  transcript  immediately  preceding  the 
last  paragraph  read  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Chadwick.  Senator  Dirksen 
was  not  testifying,  as  I  recall  it,  that  morning.  He  was  merely  a 
member  of  the  committee,  and  you  referred  to  it  as  testimony. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  intended  not  to.  Perhaps  I  did  identify  it  as 
testimony  or  a  statement.    I  have  not  had  time  to  go  over  it. 

The  Chairman.  1  think  it  is  a  statement.  I  think  at  one  time  prob- 
ably he  was  sworn  and  did  testify. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  amend  anything  I  have  said  before,  and  quote 
the  following  statement  of  Senator  Dirksen,  published  at  page  7017 
of  the  same  transcript  as  we  have  been  using. 

It  is  a  question  that  admits  of  no  easy  solution.  You  might  approach  it 
legalistieally  or  try  to  look  at  all  sides.  I  am  wondering  about  a  case  like  this: 
Let's  assume  that  a  document  in  a  file  which  two  men  have  knowledge  which, 
if  it  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  could  be  regarded  as  giving  aid  and  comfort 
to  the  enemy,  which  is  the  accepted  definition  for  treason.  Suppose  1  of  the  2 
should  say,  "I  have  a  friend  who  will  transmit  this  to  the  enemy."  And  the 
other  admonished  him  of  his  duty  to  his  country,  and  then  went  to  complain 
to  his  superior  about  it  and  got  no  satisfactory  answer,  and  then  called  it  to 
the  attention  of  some  Member  of  the  House  or  the  Senate.  Legally  and  morally, 
where  do  you  draw  the  line  where  the  security  of  the  country  is  involved?  It 
might  be  a  clear  case  of  treason.  Should  1  of  the  2  individuals  with  an  in- 
grained sense  of  loyalty  and  devotion  say,  "This  is  treason  if  you  give  it,  and 
while  I  get  no  comfort  from  my  superior  by  telling  him  that  you  have  this  in 
mind,  I  will  call  up  one  of  the  Senators  and  tell  him  about  if." 

The  question  is,  not  what  about  the  legal  aspect,  but  what  about  the  moral 
aspect  that  is  involved  as  well? 

That  is  the  end  of  the  quotation  as  I  understand,  that  Mr.  Williams 
desired  to  be  read. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  91 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  cover  what  you  wanted,  Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  for  calling  it  to  our  attention. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  It  is  possible  that  in  reading  the  number  7017  from 
the  transcript,  I  misquoted  one  of  the  figures.  I  repeat  it  again,  I 
think,  for  the  third  time,  this  is  at  page  7017  of  the  transcript. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  proceed  to  read  in  order  from  page  7022  of  the 
transcript  in  question : 

Senator  Symington.  Now,  I  understand  you  believe,  as  permanent  c-bairman 
of  the  Subcommittee  on  Investigations,  you  are  an  authorized  person  to  receive 
classified  documents;  is  that  right? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  an  authorized  person  to  receive  information  in  regard 
to  any  wrongdoing  in  the  executive  branch.  When  you  say  "classified  docu- 
ments," Mr.  Symington,  certainly  I  am  not  authorized  to  receive  anything  which 
would  divulge  the  names  of,  we  will  say,  informants,  of  Army  Intelligence, 
anything  which  would  in  any  way  compromise  their  investigative  technique, 
and  that. sort  of  thing.  But  as  chairman  of  this  watchdog  committee,  I  think 
that  is  what  you  call  it,  I  feel  I  am  in  duty  bound  to  receive  any  information 
about  wrongdoing. 

1  now  read  from  page  7026  to  page  7028  of  the  same  transcript : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  we  now — you  [Senator  McClellan]  and  I — both 
say  to  the  public  you  will  either  be  the  chairman  or  the  ranking  Democrat  mem- 
ber, I  will  either  be  the  chairman  or  the  ranking  Republican  member.  Can  we 
now  say  to  the  public,  say  to  the  people  who  are  working  in  Government,  that 
if  they  know  of  any  wrongdoing,  that  no  phony  stamp  of  secrecy  or  classification 
should  keep  that  from  the  Congress?  Can  we  agree  now,  John,  that  if  anyone 
brings  you  information  or  me  infoi'mation,  if  they  do  that  in  a  confidential 
manner,  that  their  names  will  not  b?  made  public?     If  we  do  that 

Senator  McClellan.  I  will  state  my  position  very  frankly.  If  they  do  it  legally, 
no,  their  names  will  not  be  given  out.  I  will  not  protect  people  in  crime.  Now, 
if  it  is  a  crime,  that  is  the  issue  I  am  ti-ying  to  get  settled ;  but  if  you  want 
to  take  the  other  position,  that  is  your  privilege.  But  I  say,  frankly,  that 
I  will  not  protect  people  in  crime  against  my  Government.  As  to  giving  in- 
formation, I  don't  blame  you  for  the  position  you. took  with  respect  to  the 
one  who  gave  you  the  document,  if  you  felt  that  it  was  legal,  and  you  had  a  right 
to  take  it.  I  would  certainly  agree  with  you  that  you  were  under  no  obligation 
whatsoever  to  give  his  name.  That  is  the  position  I  take.  Bvit  I  go  back  to  the 
position,  at  all  times,  that  I  will  not  condone  crime.  I  don't  know  what  your 
position  is. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Senator,  could  we  do  this — and  I  don't  want  to  pursue 
this  any  further  because  we  are  all  trying  to  end  up  these  hearings — can  we 
agree  that  if  anyone  in  Government  knows  of  any  wrongdoing,  whether  it  is  theft, 
whether  it  is  treason,  whether  it  is  Communist  infiltration,  that  if  they  come  to 
you  or  if  they  come  to  me.  that  we  will  consider  that  they  ai-e  doing  their  duty, 
and  that  they  are  not  guilty  of  any  crime,  because  the  law  says  they  have  a  right 
and  the  dut.v"  to  do  it?  They  take  an  oath  .of  office  to  protect  this  Nation.  If  we 
could  agree  upon  that,  Senator 

Senator  McClellan.  That  is  your  position. 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  finish?  If  we  coiild  agree  on  that,  then  I  think  that 
much  of  this  time,  which  might  otherwise  be  considered  wasted,  would  not  be 
wasted. 

Senator  McClellan.  May  I  say  to  you,  in  answer  to  that,  if  one  brings  to  me  a 
classified  document,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  he  has  violated  the  law,  then  I  will 
be  under  no  obligation  to  keep  his  name  secret.  And  until  you  can  settle  that 
question,  I  cannot  follow 

I  now  read  from  the  same  transcript  at  pages  7034-7035 : 

Senator  Symington.  I  am  for  a  government  of  law  and  not  men. 

Now,  may  I  continue  with  the  questioning?  As  I  understand,  Senator,  going 
back  to  the  last  one,  do  you  believe,  as  chairman  of  the  Permanent  Committee  on 
Investigations,  you  are  an  authorized  person  to  receive  classified  documents;  is 
that  right? 

52461—54 7 


92  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  McCarthy.  First,  Senator,  I  assume  when  you  made  that  comment, 
that  you  may  have  wanted  me  to  comment  on  it.  I  would  say,  when  you  made 
that  profound  statement  that  crime  is  wrong,  I  ayree  witli  you. 

No.  2,  your  question  is  whether,  as  chairman  of  the  Investigating  Committee  I 
am  entitled  to  receive  classified  documents. 

Senator  Symington.  AVill  the  repoi'ter  i-ead  the  question,  please,  because  the 
Senator  did  not  get  it? 

Senator  Mundt.  The  reporter  will  read  the  question. 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  answer  to  that,  Mr.  Symington,  is  that  no  one  can 
deny  us  information  by  stamping  something  "Classified.'' 

Senator  Symington.  I  am  sorry.  Senator,  I  didn't  hear  you. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  said  the  answer  to  that  is  that  no  one  can  deny  us 
information,  deny  the  American  people  information,  by  stamping  it  "Classified." 

Senator  Symington.  Regardless  of  whether  it  is  top  secret,  Q-clearance,  or 
secret? 

Senator  IVIcCarthy.  It  isn't  a  question  of  the  stamp  on  it.  We  should  not  re- 
ceive or  get  any  information  which  gives  the  names  of  any  informants  of  any 
investigative  agency,  anything  that  discloses  their  investigative  technique  or 
anything  which  might  endanger  the  Nation's  security.     We  have  not. 

I  read  from  page  7037  of  the  same  transcript : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Any  committee  which  has  .iurisdiction  over  a  subject  has 
the  right  to  receive  the  infoi-mation.  The  stamp  on  the  document,  I  would  say, 
is  not  controlling.  Any  evidence  of  wrongdoing  should  be  made  available  to  the 
people,  especially  when  it  has  to  do  with  treason. 

Senator  Symington.  Regardless  of  instructions  from  his  superior,  anybody 
can  decide  themselves,  regardless  of  the  classification  of  a  document,  if  they 
believe  that  it  is  wrong,  whatever  their  superior  does,  therefore  they  have  the 
right  to  tell  it  to  a  congressional  conmiittee,  is  that  right? 

Senator  IMcCarthy.  Senator,  so  that  there  is  no  question,  let  me  repeat  again, 
anyone  who  has  evidence  of  wrongdoing,  has  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  to 
bring  that  evidence  to  a  congressional  committee. 

Just  one  minute. 

Mr,  Williams.  I  do  not  think  you  finished  that  statement  of  Senator 
McCarthy,  Mr.  Chadwick.  There  is  another  sentence.  He  was 
answering. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  finished  it  as  my  notes  have  it  appear,  sir.  If 
there  is  another  sentence,  I  will  be  very  glad  to  have  you  read  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  answer  was  not  complete.  That  is  all  I  call 
your  attention  to. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  de  Furia,  will  you  get  the  copy,  and  let  us  see 
what  the  question  is  ? 

Mr.  Williams  The  last  sentence  was  this,  and  I  am  quoting : 

Now,  Alger  Hiss,  you  see,  if  you  followed  your  line  of  reasoning,  Senator, 
Alger  Hiss  would  not  be  in  jail.  Alger  Hiss  could  stamp  the  information  about 
himself  secret  and  top  secret.     You  just  can't  do  that. 

That  is  the  complete  answer. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  no  objection.     That  should  go  in. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  ask  the  chairnum's  indulgence  for  just  a  moment. 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  completes  the  matters'  which  w^e  desire  to  sub- 
mit to  your  attention  under  point  2  of  our  notes. 

The  Chairman.  Y(.»u  mean,  point  2  of  the  charges  as  the  committee 
decided  to  take  them  ? 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  There  are  some  things  I  should  like  to  see  placed  in 
the  record,  and  I  suggest  that  the  staff  get  them  and  prepare  to  intro- 
duce them  at  an  appropriate  time  : 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  93 

1.  I  think  the  record  should  have  a  copy  of  the  oath  of  office  which 
Federal  employees  do  take; 

2.  I  should  like  to  see  the  appropriate  paragraph  from  the  Legisla- 
tive Reorganization  Act  which  deals  with  the  authority  of  what  was 
then  designated  as  the  Committee  on  Expenditures'  in  the  Executive 
Departments,  and  is  now  knoAvn  as  the  Committee  on  Government 
Operations ; 

3.  The  paragraph  from  the  rules  of  the  Senate  which  recites  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  committees  as  pertaining  to  the  presently  desig- 
nated Committee  on  Government  Operations; 

4.  Appropriate  sections,  if  any  are  now  applicable,  from  the  act 
which  Senator  McCarthy  referred  to  as  having  been  introduced  by 
his  predecessor.  Senator  LaFollette : 

5.  Appropriate  sections  or  paragraphs  from  the  Espionage  Act 
relative  to  the  handling  of  classified  material ; 

6.  The  law,  or  appropriate  sections  therefrom,  relative  to  the  powers 
of  employees  or  officers  in  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government 
to  classifiy  or  declassify  documents ;  and 

7.  Any  references  in  the  statute,  if  there  be  such,  which  define  the 
responsibility  of  those  who  have  access  to  classified  material,  with 
respect  to  reporting  to  their  superiors  any  violations  of  law  in  the 
handling  of  such  classified  material. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case,  the  suggestions  are  all  very  good, 
and  we  thank  you  for  them. 

I  will  say  that  committee  counsel  and  staff  had  anticipated  the 
need  for  all  that  information,  and  rather  than  break  up  the  continuity 
of  the  testimony  itself,  we  decided  to  place  it  immediately  following 
the  conclusion  of  each  one  of  these  testimony  readings.  That  will.be 
inserted  in  the  hearings  at  the  appropriate  points. 

Senator  Case.  I  have  no  objection  to  where.it  comes  in,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. It  may  be  that  part  of  it  will  be  covered  in  the  presentation  on 
the  next  category. 

The  Chairjvian.  I  think  they  are  all  good  suggestions.  I  just  con- 
ferred a  moment  ago  with  Mr.  Chaclwick,  and  he  asked  the  very  ques- 
tion that  you  had  in  mind,  where  they  are  to  be  put  in — should  we 
put  them  in  now  or  at  the  conclusion  of  each  phase  of  the  testimony. 

I  think  the  proper  thing  to  do  is  probably  to  insert  them  there,  and 
it  is  not  necessary  to  read  them  at  this  time,  all  of  those  sections  of  the 
law,  unless  the  committee  members  want  it.  If  the  committee  mem- 
bers want  it,  we  can  have  that  done  nOw. 

They  are  mostly  legal  matters.  They  are  quotations  from  the  stat- 
utes and  they  will  ordinarily  come  in  under  the  legal  phase  of  this 
investigation. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  assume  that  ruling  pertains  also  to  us,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. We  have,  of  course,  a  legal  position  on  this,  but  I  assume  from 
your  rulings  of  the  other  day  you  prefer  to  hear  that  in  defense. 

The  Chairman.  That's  right.  Well,  you  can  suggest  then.  Even 
though  you  put  them  in  later,  we  will  try  to  put  them  along  with  the 
committee  investigations  at  the  same  point  in  the  record.  Will  that 
be  satisf  actoiy  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  We  will  wait  until  we  go  to  the  defense. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  unless  the  committ-ee  objects,  the  proper 
time  to  do  that  is  after  we  have  concluded  the  testimony,  and  then 


94  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

inserts  can  be  made  following  each  one  of  these  categories  of  the 
legal  matters  that  should  be  taken  into  consideration. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  not  consume  then  the  time  of  the  committee 
to  receive  it  now.     Is  there  any  objection  to  that  course,  Senator  Case? 

Senator  Case.  No;  no  objection  at  all.  I  just  thought  we  ought  to 
have  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee  as  we  study  and  review  the 
evidence,  and  also  that  it  should  be  available  conveniently  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate  when  the  committee  makes  such  a  report. 

I  learned  by  talking  with  the  assistant  counsel,  Mr.  de  Furia,  that 
at  least  part  of  what  I  have  asked  for  will  probably  be  presented  in 
connection  with  the  next  classification,  and,  of  course,  any  part  that 
is  presently  completely  there,  I  mean  that  is  responsive  to  the  infor- 
mation I  requested,  won't  need  to  be  duplicated,  but  that  can  be  checked 
against  the  requests  made,  and  then  at  the  appropriate  time  the  bal- 
ance of  the  information  submitted. 

The  Ch AIRMAN".  I  think  you  are  correct  in  that  statement,  and  I 
agree.     Proceed  with  the  next  category.     We  will  pause  temporarily. 

(Discussion  off  the  record.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  now  pass  to  that  part  of  the  com- 
mittee counsel's  presentation  referring  to  three  incidents  involving 
receipt  or  use  of  confidential  or  classified  documents  or  other  confi- 
dential information  from  the  executive  files,  based  upon  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  Senator  Morse,  being  amendment  D,  reading  as 
follows : 

Received  and  made  use  of  confidential  information  unlawfully  obtained  from 
a  document  in  the  executive  files  upon  which  document  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  had  placed  its  highest  classification ;  and  offered  such  information 
to  a  lawfully  constituted  Senate  committee  in  the  form  of  a  spurious  document 
vphich  he  falsely  asserted  to  the  subcommittee  to  be  "a  letter  from  the  FBI." 

And  based  also  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  Senator  Flanders, 
No.  13,  reading  as  follows : 

He  received  and  held  a  valuable  classified  document  in  possible  violation  of 
the  Espionage  Act.  (Revealed  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings  that  he  had 
improperly  obtained  .1.  Edgar  Hoover's  report  on  subversives  from  the  Army, 
and  failed  to  restore  the  document  to  properly  authorized  hands.)  He  permitted 
the  document  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  gossip  columnist  (Walter  Winchell). 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  continue  to  read  into  the  record  excerpts  of  testi- 
mony and  statements  made  at  the  hearings  before  tlie  Permanent  Sub- 
committee on  Investigations  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Opera- 
tions on  various  dates,  beginning  May  4,  1954,  at  the  pages  indicated, 
asking  that  the  committee  take  legislative  notice  thereof.  We  will 
read  into  the  record,  first 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed.  The  committee  will  take  judi- 
cial notice  of  the  record. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Chairman,  parts  of  this  that  I  am  about  to  read 
do  not  appear  in  the  printed  portions  of  those  hearings,  and  we  have, 
therefore,  obtained  the  official  transcript  and  will  read  from  the 
transcript  where  necessary. 

Mr.  Williams,  do  you  have  a  copy  of  the  material  I  am  about  to  read  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  sure  that  I  do  not  have  it.  I  was  not  furnished 
with  a  copy. 

Mr.  DE  FuRL\.  We  will  be  glad  to  suppy  that  deficiency,  sir. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  95 

May  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 
The  Chaieman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Page  703,  volume  18.  Secretary  Stevens  is  on  the 
stand. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  would  like  to  give  you  a  letter,  one  which 
was  written  incidentally  before  you  took  office  but  which  was  in  the  tile,  I  under- 
stand, all  during  the  time  you  are  in  office — I  understand  it  is  in  the  file  as  of 
today — from  the  FBI,  pointing  out  the  urgency  in  connection  with  certain  cases, 
listing  the  fact,  for  example,  that  Coleman  had  been  in  direct  connection  with 
espionage  agents — 

there  is  an  omission  or  there  is  a  deletion — and  then  we  continue  with 
the  following : 

Senator  Jackson.  May  I  ask  this  question?  I  am  a  little  confused.  This  is  a 
copy  of  a  letter  that  is  being  introduced.  I  would  like  to  know  how  it  arrived 
here  to  the  committee,  where  it  came  from,  and  how  it  came  here.  This  is  a  letter 
from  J.  Edgar  Hoover  to  General  Boiling  back  in  1951.  How  did  it  get  into  the 
hands  of  the  committee? 

Mr.  Jenkins.  It  was  handed  to  me.  Senator  Jackson,  by  Senator  McCarthy, 
who  is  making  it  the  basis  of  the  cross-examination  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Army, 
the  purpose  of  his  examination  patently  being  this 

Senator  Jackson.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  authenticated. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  am  getting  ready  to.  I  hold  now,  on  the  basis  of  the  copy  of  this 
letter,  and  on  the  assumption  that  no  guardian  in  interest  and  no  counsel  would 
refer  to  a  spurious  manufactured  document,  that  Senator  McCarthy's  cross- 
examination  of  the  Secretary  with  reference  to  this  letter  is  wholly  competent. 

Then  on  page  704,  Mr.  Chairman : 

Senator  Jackson.  Mr.  Jenkins,  it  is  a  very  simple  matter.  Did  the  committee 
get  this  from  the  Army?  Was  it  subpenaed?  Is  it  from  the  FBI?  That  is  the 
vei-y  simple  question.    How  did  it  come  into  our  possession? 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Which  committee,  the  McCarthy  committee  or  this  investigating 
committee? 

Senator  Jackson.  Both. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  It  was  handed  to  me  just  now  by  Senator  McCarthy;  that 
is  all  I  know  of  it.  It  is  a  proper  basis  for  a  cross-examination.  That  is  very 
evident  from  reading  the  letter. 

Senator  Jackson.  I  understand,  but  it  can  be  readily  identified  whether  this 
was  a  matter  that  was  subpenaed  from  the  Army  files  or  whether  the  Army 
voluntarily  gave  it  to  Senator  McCarthy. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  can  have  Senator  McCarthy  put  under  oath  and  examine  him 
with  reference  to  that  particular  point,  in  keeping  with  Senator  Symington's 

Senator  Mundt.  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Welch? 

Mr.  Welch.  I  respectfully  suggest  that  that  be  done.  I  am  a  lawyer,  and 
the  appearance  of  what  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  J.  Edgar  Hoover 
in  1951  addressed  to  some  colonel ;  is  that  riglit? 

Mr.  Jenkins.  A  major  general. 

Mr.  Welch.  The  mere  fact  that  we  have  an  impressive  looking,  purported 
copy  of  such  a  letter  doesn't  impress  an  oldtime  lawyer.  I  would  like  to  have 
Mr.  J.  Edgar  Hoover  say  that  he  wrote  the  letter  and  mailed  it.  Then  we  would 
know  what  we  were  dealing  with. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Mundt.  Senator  McCarthy. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  want  to  question  the  Secretary  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  original  of  this  and  other  letters  like  it  are  in  his  file.  I  want  to  make  it 
clear  that  I  have  gotten  neither  this  letter  nor  anything  else  from  the  FBI. 

Mr.  Welch.  Where  did  it  come  from  then? 

Senator  Mundt.  The  Chair  will  rule  that  Senator  McCarthy  may  ask  the 
witness,  if  he  cares  to,  whether  such  a  letter  is  there  in  the  files,  and  as  to 
other  investigative  agencies.  The  Chair  holds  that  none  of  them  have  to  dis- 
close the  sources  of  their  information. 

Then  on  page  705  again,  Mr.  Chairman : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Stevens,  would  you  look  at  that  letter  and  tell  us, 
No.  1,  whether  or  not  you  have  ever  seen  it  or  were  ever  notified  of  its  contents? 
I  think  you  should  read  the  letter  before  you  answer  it. 


96  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Secretary  Stevens.  I  would  like  to  have  the  advice  of  counsel  first  as  to 
whether  or  not  I  am  at  liberty  to  discuss  a  letter  from  J.  Edgar  Hoover,  because 
I  have  grave  reservations  about  discussing  at  all  any  letter  written  by  Mr.  J. 
Edgar  Hoover  unless  I  have  his  specific  approval.  I  will,  therefore,  ask  the 
chairman  to  give  me  the  opportunity  of  securing  the  approval  of  Mr.  J.  Edgar 
Hoover  before  I  discuss  any  letter  purporting  to  have  been  written  my  him, 
because  I  think  it  is  a  very  bad  policy  to  discuss  these  things  without  Mr, 
Hoover's  knowing  about  it. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Would  you  like  to  read  it  first? 

Mr.  Welch.  May  I  add,  Mr.  Chairman — and  I  have  a  letter  in  my  hand  and  it 
is  headed  "Personal  and  Confidential  Via  Liaison."  which  seemed  to  me  to  be 
rather  severe  words  of  a  confidential  nature.  I  think  INlr.  Stevens  is  quite  right 
in  saying  that  this  is  a  matter  that  ought  to  be  released  by  J.  Edgar  Hoover 
before  we  deal  with  it  in  this  room. 

Senator  Mundt.  The  Chair  would  agree  that  if  the  letter  is  marked  "Per- 
sonal and  Confidential"  that  the  contents  of  the  letter  should  not  be  revealed 
without  the  consent  of  the  Senate. 

Continuing  on  page  706,  Mr.  Chairman : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  I  would  have  no  objection  to  that, 
but  first  may  I  have  the  Secretary  read  the  letter?  I  don't  intend  to  inquire 
about  the  contents  if  the  Chair  feels  we  should  not  do  that,  but  I  would  like  to 
have  him  read  the  letter  and  tell  us  whether  or  not  that  is  a  duplicate  of  what 
he  has  in  his  file.  If  he  cannot  tell  us  that,  then  he  can  examine  the  file  and  tell 
us,  tell  us  whether  or  not  this  is  just  one  of  a  sequence  of  letters  from  the 
FBI,  complaining  about  the  bad  security  setup  at  the  Signal  Corps  Laboratory 
and  giving  information  on  certain  individuals. 

Continuing  on  page  707 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  say  I  have  heard  many  ridiculous  things  across 
the  table,  but  to  say  that  something  dealing  with  the  Communist  activities  of 
men  under  the  Secretary's  command  should  not  be  seen  by  him  is  the  most 
ridiculous  I  have  heard  of.  Of  the  letter  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  all  I  ask  is  that 
the  Secretary  look  at  it  so  he  can  search  the  files  and  tell  us  whether  or  not 
the  original  of  that  letter  is  in  the  file. 

Continuing  on  page  708 : 

Senator  Symington 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  sorry  to  interrupt  again,  but  I  have  to  call 
attention  of  the  Chair  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  de  Furia  is  reading  from 
the  record  of  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings,  and  everything  he  is 
reading  of  course  is  accurate,  but  I  think  there  are  many  things  which 
he  is  omitting  here  Avhich  should  be  placed  in  the  record  if  we  are 
going  to  read  this  whole  thing,  so  that  all  of  the  remarks  that  are  made 
will  be  in  the  context.  Now,  there  are  some  statements  by  Senator 
McCarthy  himself  Avhich  have  a  very  vital  bearing  on  this  whole 
matter  with  regard  to  his  attitude  and  disposition  toward  the  very 
letter  in  question.  I  have  reference  to  things  at  page  70G  of  the 
printed  hearings,  and  that  is  where  I  have  been  trying  to  follow  Mr. 
de  Furia. 

It  seems  to  me,  I  think  the  Chair  has  always  known  my  position.  I 
have  always  been  willing,  at  least  throughout  this  week,  while  docu- 
mentary proof  went  in,  to  stipulate  that  the  whole  record  could  be 
considered.  But  since  we  are  reading  these  things,  I  really  feel  that 
Ave  ought  to  read  everything  so  that  all  statements  made  by  everybody 
should  be  in  context. 

Now,  there,  on  page  706,  is  a  statement  by  Senator  McCarthy  that  he 
has  no  disposition  to  have  the  contents  of  the  letter  disclosed 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  97 

The  CiiAiEMAN".  Mr.  Williams,  I  suggest  as  a  practical  matter,  now, 
if  you  will  indicate  the  matter  that  you  think  ought  to  be  read,  we  will 
have  someone  read  it,  if  it  is  not  clearly  off  on  some  other  subject. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  do  not  propose  to  read  anything,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  is  clearly  off 

The  Chairma^st.  I  assume  that.  But  still  I  have  to  make  a  ruling 
on  that. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  de  Furia  had  gone,  I  understand,  to  page  708, 
as  I  have  tried  to  follow  him  here,  in  two  documents. 

The  CiiAiiuiAx.  I  suggest,  Mr.  de  Furia,  that  you  and  Mr.  Wil- 
liams get  together  for  a  moment  and  get  clearly  just  what  he  has  in 
mind  that  ought  to  be  read,  and  I  think  we  can  settle  that  in  just  a 
moment. 

Mr.  De  Furia.  Yes. 

(Discussion  off  the  record.) 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  May  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  the  material  that  Mr.  Williams  thought 
ought  to  be  read  ? 

Mr,  DE  Furia.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams  desires  that  an 
additional  sentence  be  read  into  the  record,  following  the  excerpt 
which  I  am  about  to  read,  and  we  have  no  objection,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  proceed  to  read  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Page  708: 

Senator  Symington.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know  the  contents  of  the  letter. 
I  do  know  it  is  a  letter  written  to  the  Intelligence  Department  of  the  Army, 
marked  "Personal  and  Confidential"  by  J.  Edgar  Hoover. 

Mr.  Williams.  There  is  a  sentence  following  the  identification  by 
Senator  Miuidt  which  reads  as  follows : 

The  Chair  does  not  imderstand  that  there  is  any  disposition  on  the  part  of 
anyone  to  make  the  contents  of  the  letter  public ;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Jenkins'  answer : 

That  is  correct,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Senator  Symington  says : 

I  don't  see  why  we  are  wasting  all  this  time  on  a  letter  that  we  do  not  intend 
to  publish  or  put  in  evidence. 

Some  of  these  things,  I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  have  a  very  direct 
bearing  on  the  overall  attitude  of  the  committee  and  Senator  McCarthy 
regarding  the  contents  of  this  letter  and  their  publication.  I  would 
like  to  reserve  the  right  to  call  those  matters  to  the  attention  of  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Well,  you  have  read  them  and  we  received  the 
statement  you  just  read  as  part  of  the  evidence.  Thank  you  for  calling 
it  to  our  attention. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  proceed,  then,  on  page  708. 

Senator  ^McCarthy.  May  I  ask  that  the  letter  remain  in  the  custody  of  Mr. 
Jenkins.    That  is  the  only  copy  I  have. 

Page  710:  ^ 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Chairman,  one  other  statement.  Apparently  the  contents 
of  this  letter  are  so  involved,  so  important,  so  sacred,  and  carry  with  them  so 
many  implications  even  of  violations  of  the  law,  that  I  respectfully  decline  Sena- 
tor McCarthy's  request  that  I  personally  be  the  custodian  of  this  letter,  and  I 
now,  in  the  presence  af  everybody  return  it  to  Senator  McCarthy. 


98  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Page  712 : 

Senator  Dirksen.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  you  recess,  let  me  ask  one  question. 
I  wanted  to  ask  Senator  McCarthy  whether  he  contemplated  inserting  that  FBI 
letter  in  the  record. 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  say  to  Senator  Dirksen  that  would  be  entirely  up  to 
the  Chair.  I  think  first  we  should  have  established  whether  or  not  it  was 
received,  whether  it  is  in  the  files  of  the  Department  of  the  Army. 

Continuing  now,  on  page  T20,  part  19,  May  5, 1954 : 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Chairman,  yesterday  afternoon  the  committee  instructed 
me  to  confer  with  J.  Edgar  Hoover  with  respect  to  a  copy  of  a  letter  allegedly 
in  the  files  of  the  Intelligence  Department  of  the  Army,  and  to  clarify  that  issue 
this  morning.  I  am  now  prepared  to  do  so.  Prior  to  so  doing  I  desire  to  ask 
the  Secretary  one  question.  *  *  * 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Stevens,  since  yesterday  afternoon,  have  you  or  not  through 
yourself  or  those  under  your  command  examined  the  files  of  the  Intelligence 
Department  at  the  Pentagon  with  special  reference  to  the  original  of  the  letter 
about  which  you  were  questioned  yestei'day  aftei'noon? 

Secretary  Stevens.  Yes  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  State  whether  or  not  such  a  letter  was  found  in  that  file  or  any 
other  file. 

Secretary  Stevens.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  the  Secretary  to  stand  aside 
momentarily  and  let  me  clarify  that  issue.  I  desire  to  call  as  the  next  witness 
my  assistant  counsel — one  of  my  assistant  counsel  and  a  member  of  my  staff, 
Mr.  Robert  Collier. 

Continuing,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  page  720  with  the  testimony  of 
Robert  A.  Collier. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  intend  to  read  all  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Collier,  because  it  seems  to  me  all  of  this  goes  right  to  the  heart  of  this 
matter  ? 

The  Chairman.  "V\^iat  is  the  answer,  Mr.  de  Furia  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  We  propose  to  read,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think,  sir,  all 
of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Collier  beginning  on  page  720,  continuing 
through  721>  722,  723 — there  ai"e  one  or  tw^o  small  deletions  on  723 
which  I  do  not  think  are  material,  sir — continuing  on  724 — there  is  one 
small  deletion  there  of  some  irrelevant  matter — 725,  726 — another 
deletion  of  apparently  irrelevant  matter — 727,  two  small  deletions  of 
irrelevant  matter,  and  728,  there  is  just  a  small  part  we  desire  to  read 
into  the  record,  sir,  about  half  of  729,  a  small  part  of  732,  continuing  on 
734  and  735. 

All  I  can  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  Judge  Chadwick  directed  us  to 
be  careful  to  delete  only  those  portions  which  were  clearly  irrelevant 
and  we  have  tried  to  follow  the  judge's  instructions,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  suggest  that  you  follow  that  order,  and  when  you 
come  to  a  deletion,  if  Mr.  Williams  will  call  our  attention  to  that 
deletion,  if  he  thinks  it  ought  to  be  read,  please  indicate  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

"Mr.  DE  Furia.  Beginning  again,  then,  on  page  720,  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  your  permission  I  will  read  the  testimony  of  Robert  Collier. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Will  you  please  state  your  full  name? 

Mr.  Collier.  Robert  A.  Collier.  e 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Collier,  you  are  a  member  of  my  staff — assistant  counsel,  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Collier,  formerly  have  you  or  not  been  employed  by  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  ? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  was,  sir.  I  was  employed  from  April  1,  1941,  until  October 
26,  1951. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  99 

Mr.  Jenkins.  You  were  present  yesterday  afternoon  wlien  a  discussion  occurred 
with  respect  to  a  letter.  Will  you  give  the  date  of  the  letter,  Mr.  Collier?  It 
has  escajied  me. 

Mr.  Collier.  January  26,  1951. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  At  which  time  the  committee  instructed  me,  either  myself  or  by 
some  member  of  my  staff,  to  confer  personally  with  Mr.  J.  Edgar  Hoover, 
Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation. 

Mr.  CoLLiEK.  I  was  present. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Were  you  present? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  at  the  close  of  the  meeting  I 
assigned  that  task  to  yovi. 

Mr.  CoLiJER.  You  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  State  whether  or  not  pursuant  to  that,  Mr.  Collier,  j'ou  conferred 
with  Mr.  Hoover  personally. 

Mr.  Collier.  I  did. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  At  what  time,  approximately,  yesterday  afternoon  or  evening? 

Mr.  Collier.  From  approximately  5 :  15  until  approximately  7 :  15. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  During  the  course  of  your  conversation  with  Mr.  Hoover,  I  will 
ask  you  whether  or  not  he  called  upon  you  to  procure  and  show  to  him  a  copy 
of  the  letter  about  which  we  are  talking? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  did. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  believe  dated  January 

Mr.  Collier.  26,  1951. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  January  26,  1951.  As  a  result  of  that  request  of  Mr.  Hoover,  did 
or  not  you  go  to  Mr.  Cohn's  office  and  procure  that  copy? 

Mr  Collier.  I  did. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  And  then  take  it  to  Mr.  Hoover? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  did. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Was  it  shown  to  him? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Collier,  now  at  this  time,  without  my  taking  the  time  and 
still  in  the  interest  of  expediting  the  hearing,  I  ask  you  to  chronologically  relate 
the  incidents  of  that  conference  with  Mr.  Hoover — what  was  done  pursuant  to 
the  request  of  the  committee  and  what  was  said  to  you  by  Mr.  Hoover? 

Mr.  Collier.  Upon  receiving  your  instructions  I  communicated  with  the  FBI 
and  within  a  very  short  period  of  time  obtained  an  appointment  with  Mr. 
Hoover.  I  went  to  see  him,  having  advised  him  of  the  date  and  the  type  of 
letter  involved.  Mr.  Hoover  at  that  time  informed  me  that  they  had  not  found 
such  a  letter.  He  did  have  another  letter  of  the  same  date.  In  order  to  be 
perfectly  sure  that  they  had  obtained  the  correct  letter  I  returned  to  the  Senate 
Office  Building  and  obtained  from  Roy  Cohn  in  Senator  McCarthy's  office  the 
letter  which  I  now  have  in  my  hand  and  which  was  the  one  produced  yesterday 
by  Senator  McCarthy.  I  took  that  letter  to  Mr.  Hoover,  and  at  that  time  he 
compared  this  letter  with  the  letter  in  his  possession  of  the  same  date. 

There  is  a  short  deletion  there,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  call  to  the 
attention  of  Mr.  Williams. 

We  continue  on  page  722  with  the  words,  "I  can  now  report  to  you." 

Mr.  Williams.  Go  ahead. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  the  deletion  read? 

Mr.  Williams.  So  far  as  I  can  see  there  has  not  been  a  deletion, 
Mr.  Chairman ;  that  is  why  we  are  confused. 

Mr.  DE  Ftjria.  Then  I  will  continue,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  page  722, 
and  this  is  a  continuation  of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Collier : 

I  can  now  report  to  you  that  Mr.  Hoover  advised  me  that  this  letter  is  not  a 
carbon — 

the  answer  is  incomplete. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Identify  the  letter  when  you  say  "this  letter." 
Mr.  Collier.  This  is  the  letter  produced  yesterday  by  Senator  McCarthy.     This 
is  not  a  carbon  copy  or  a  copy  of  any  communication  prepared  or  sent  by  the 
FBI  to  General  Boiling  on  January  26,  1951,  or  any  other  date.     The  FBI  has 
in  its  files  a  letter — 

the  answer  is  incomplete. 


100  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Are  you  now  stating  what  Mr.  Hoover  personally  told  you? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Collier.  The  FBI  does  have  in  its  files  a  file  copy  of  a  letter  dated  Janu- 
ary 26,  1951,  the  same  date,  prepared  and  sent  hy  the  FBI  to  General  Boiling, 
which  was  a  15-page  interdepartmental  memorandum.  A  carbon  copy  of  that 
went  to  Maj.  Gen.  Joseph  F.  Carroll,  United  States  Air  Force. 

Mr.  Hoover,  in  comparing  the  two  documents,  advised  me  that  the  form  of 
the  carbon  copy  which  I  have  the  one  introduced,  and  the  yellow  copy  of  thfi 
FBI  memorandum  prepared  on  January  26,  are  materially  different  in  form. 

I  can  recount  for  you,  as  Mr.  Hoover  advised  me,  the  difference  in  that  foi-m. 
For  purposes  of  identification,  I  will  refer  to  the  document  introduced  yesterday 
as  the  carbon  copy,  and  to  the  yellow  copy  in  the  FBI  files,  the  15-page  memo- 
randum, as  the  FBI  original. 

On  the  FBI  original  the  words  "Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation"  are  printed 
in  large  block  letters  across  the  top  of  the  page.  On  the  carbon  copy  the  words 
"Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation"  are  typed.  The  date  January  26,  1951,  ap- 
pears directly  beneath  the  type  "Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation"  on  the  carbon 
copy  and  is  in  a  different  position  on  the  page  of  the  FBI  original.  The  cai-hoa 
copy  has  across  the  top  "Personal  and  Confidential  Via  Liaison."  The  FBI 
original  has  in  the  upper-hand  corner  the  words  "Via  Liaison."  The  memo- 
randum, the  FBI  original,  is  in  the  form  of  an  interdepartmental  memorandum. 
It  is  not  typed.  It  merely  carries  the  name  of  the  Director  and  the  FBI.  The 
carbon  copy  would  indicate  a  signature  was  to  be  affixed.  The  FBI  original 
was  addressed  to  Maj.  Gen.  A.  R.  Boiling.  The  carbon  copy  is  addressed  to 
Major  General  Boiling,  the  initials  "A.  R."  being  left  out. 

The  same  words  "Assistant  Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  Department  of  the  Army" 
appear  on  both  documents.  In  the  FBI  original  the  additional  words  "The 
Pentagon"  appear,  that  is  not  on  the  carbon  copy,  and  the  words  "Washington. 
D.  C."  appear  on  both  dociunents.  The  FBI  original  has  the  word  "from"  and 
the  words  "John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation." 
That  is  not  on  the  carbon  copy.  The  FBI  original  has  the  word  "subject"  and 
then  typed  thereon  "Aaron  Hyman  Coleman,  Espionage-R."  The  "R"  stands 
Jor  Russian  and — 

the  senteiice  is  incomplete. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  not  sure  I  understood.  You  say 
that  is  the  FBI  copy  you  are  talking  about? 


Continuing  on  page  723 : 


Mr.  Collier.  Yes.  sir.  In  other  words,  the  subject  Aaron  Coleman,  Espion- 
age— R,  appears  on  the  FBI  original.     It  does  not  appear  on  the  carbon  copy. 

This  carbon  copy  carries  the  salutation  "sir."  The  FBI  original  carries  no 
salutation. 

This  carbon  copy  is  214  pages  in  length.  The  FBI  original  is  15  pages  in 
length. 

The  carbon  copy  at  the  end  carries  the  words  "Sincerely  yours.  J.  Edgar 
Hoover.  Director."  That,  of  course,  did  not  appear  at  the  end  of  the  FBI 
original,  but  actually  appeared  in  the  "To"  "From"  relation  in  the  beginning. 

The  carbon  copy  shows  no  carbon   copy  being  sent  to  anyone  else. 

Continuing  on  page  723 : 

Mr.  Collier.  I  would  like  to  pass  to  the  Chair  the  diagram  which  I  haVe 
drawn  which  will  give  you  a  more  visual  reference  to  the  two  letters  which 
I  have  brought  out. 

Senator  Symington.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  make  a  point  of  order?  When  the 
witness  discusses  the  carbon  copy,  he  might  say  the  alleged  carbon  copy. 

Senator  McCarthy.  A  point  of  order.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  know 
who  alleged  it  to  be  a  carbon  copy.  We  have  never  alleged  it  to  be  a  carbon 
copy. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Collier,  you  may  proceed. 

Senator  Mundt.  Proceed.  Mr.  Collier. 

Mr.  Collier.  The  FBI  oriuinal.  on  the  last  page  thereof,  shows  the  following: 

"cc.  Major  General  Joseph  F.  Carroll.  *  *  *  U.  S.  A.  F." 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  101 

Now,  that  is  the  difference  in  form  alone.  I  am  clistinguishinsr  between 
form  and  substance.  Mr.  Hoover  advised  me,  and  examined  the  two  documents 
in  my  presence,  advised  me  that  the  substance  of  the  original  FBI  15-page 
memorandum  and  the  substance  of  the  2i/4-page  carbon  copy,  contain  informa- 
tion relating  to  the  same  subject  matter,  and  that  in  some  instances  exact  or 
identical  language  appears  in  both  documents. 

Other  than  that,  Mr.  Hoover  feels  that  to  further  clarify  it  would  reveal, 
possibly  reveal,  the  substance  of  the  documents  themselves. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  continuing  on  page  724 : 

On  that  point,  Mr.  Hoover  asked  me  to  inform  you  that  he  respectfully  refers 
the  committee  to  the  Attorney  General  for  his  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  contents  can  be  made  public  in  line  with  security  requirements.  And 
since  the  language  is,  in  some  instances,  identical,  that  would  apparently  go  for 
both  documents. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Collier,  have  you  in  detail  related  all  of  the  events  tran- 
spiring in  your  conference  with  Mr.  Hoover? 

Mr.  CoLLiEK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jknkins.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Mxjndt.  Just  one  question.  The  Chair  is  not  certain,  and  I  am  not 
sure  that  you  can  answer  this  question,  but  did  you  determine  whether  the 
FBI  original  was  in  the  files  of  the  military  and  available  to  Secretary  Stevens? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  will  go  back  to  the  question  that  Ray  asked  me.  I  did  not  com- 
plete it.  On  that  point  I  determined  that  the  yellow  copy  in  the  FBI  file,  which 
is  the  file  copy,  carries  the  following  handwritten  notations  concerning  the 
original : 

"Delivered  to  Colonel  Cramer,  G-2, 1-27-51,  W.  R.  P." 

Those  initials  are  those  of  the  liaison  representative  of  the  FBI,  Wesley  P. 
Reynolds.  The  carbon  copy  to  Maj.  Gen.  Joseph  F.  Carroll,  according  to  a  hand- 
written notation  on  the  yellow,  was  delivered  to  "Gill  Levy,  OSI,  1/29/51,  ESS," 
the  initials  standing  for  Ed  S.  Sanders. 

Senator  Mundt.  In  other  words,  those  originals  were  apparently  delivered 
in  1951? 

Mr.  Collier.  They  were,  sir. 

Senator  Mundt.  And  were  delivered  to  G-2  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Collier.  The  memorandum  is  dated  January  26.  It  was  delivered  per- 
sonally by  Mr.  Wesley  P.  Reynolds  to  Colonel  Cramer  on  January  27,  1951.  The 
carbon  copy  was  delivered  personally  by  Mr.  Ed  Sanders  to  OSI  on  January 
29,  1951. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  deleted  a  portion  and  are  continuing  on 
page  724  with  the  statement  or  question  of  Senator  Mundt,  beginning 
now,  "I  understand." 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  do  you  want  that  deletion  read? 

Mr.  Williams.  Wliere  does  that  deletion  appear?     After  724? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Yes ;  from  my  notes,  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Would  you  read  the  last  thing  you  just  read,  Mr. 
de  Furia  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRLA.  (reading)  : 

Delivered  personally  by  Mr.  Ed  Sanders  to  OSI,  1/29/51. 

Now,  it  may  be  a  turnover  instead  of  a  deletion. 
Mr.  Williams.  Wliere  do  you  resume  ? 
Mr.  DE  FuRiA  (reading)  : 

Senator  Mundt.  Now  I  understand 

Mr.  Williams.  Go  ahead ;  that's  all  right.     There  is  no  purpose  in 
putting  that  in. 
Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Page  724 : 

Senator  Mundt.  Now  I  understand.  You  were  quoting  Mr.  Hoover  then  when 
you  say  that  in  some  instances  the  language  was  identical,  that  the  subject 
matter  was  identical,  and  that,  as  Mr.  Hoover  interprets  the  security  laws,  the 
subject  matter,  both  of  the  FBI  copies  and  the  copies  from  Senator  McCarthy's 


102  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

flies,  because  they  deal  with  an  identical  subject,  should  not  be  revealed  in 
public,  short  of  a  ruling  of  the  Attorney  General ;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  CorxiER.  I  want  to  make  it  clear  Mr.  Hoover  did  not,  of  course,  refer  to 
his  carbon  copy  when  he  stated  that,  because  actually  this  is  not  a  carbon  copy 
of  any  FBI  document.  He  was  referring  to  his  own  document,  the  15-page 
memorandum,  when  he  suggested  that  "I  respectfully  refer  you  to  the  Attorney 
General  for  his  opinion." 

Senator  Mundt.  You  are  speaking  for  yourself  then  when  you  said  that  because 
J.  Edgar  Hoover  had  told  you  in  some  instances  the  language  was  identical,  the 
subject  matter  was  identical,  that  you  believe  that  without  authorization  from 
the  Attorney  General  we  should  not  discuss  the  subject? 

Mr.  CoLLiKR.  That  is  correct.  Mr.  Hoover  made  no  comment  concerning  this 
carbon  copy. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  would  like  to  point  out  I  think 
this  should  be  explored  with  Mr.  Hoover.  As  far  as  I  know,  if  the  Chair  will 
refer  to  page  2  of  the  hearings  where  this  letter  lists  the  names  of  individuals 
at  Fort  Monmouth,  I  understand  the  FBI  report  gives  the  names  of  informants 
and  information.  That  security  information  was  omitted  from  this  copy,  call 
it  what  you  may,  which  I  have.  I  would  like  to  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  the 
witness  has  not  covered  that.     Apparently  he  can  because  he  says  he  has — 

I  think  there  is  a  typographical  error  there.     It  should  read : 

Apparently  he  can't,  because  he  says  he  has  not  examined  the  letter  whether 
or  not  all  portions  of  this  document  which  was— 

Incompleted  sentence. 

Senator  Mundt.  That  is  a  question  which  you  should  address  to  the  witness, 
not  to  the  Chair.     It  would  not  be  a  point  of  order,  I  don't  think. 

Senator  McCarthy.  No,  Mr.  Chairman ;  it  is  a  request  of  the  Chair  and  this 
is  a  very,  very  important  matter,  Mr.  Chairman.  It  is  a  request  of  the  Chair 
that  I  am  making. 

I  am  making  a  request  that  someone  from  the  FBI  be  called  to  tell  us  whether 
or  not  all  of  the  language  in  the  documents  submitted  yesterday  is  not  identical 
to  the  language  in  the  documents  submitted  to  the  military,  with  the  exception 
of  where  we  list  the  name  of  an  individual  and  put  the  word  after  it  "deroga- 
tory," in  same  cases  "not  derogatory,"  that  the  FBI  report  actually  contains 
all  the  information.  I  should  think  we  should  ask  Mr.  Hoover  whether  or  not 
he  would  object  to  having  put  into  the  record — -this  is  a  request  I  am  making 
of  the  Chair.     May  I  finish,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Mundt.  Is  it  a  point  of  order? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  making  a  request  of  the  Chair,  a  very  important 
request. 

The  request  is  this :  We  have  a  document  here  concerning  Fort  Monmouth, 
Communists  at  Fort  Monmouth,  and  a  warning  relating  to  them.  I  want  to 
know,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  Chair  will  not  now  call  someone  from  the  Bureau 
who  can  bring  down  the  document  they  have,  not  for  public  exhibition,  and  tell 
us  whether  or  not  all  the  language  is  not  identical  except  that  in  this  document 
the  individuals  are  merely  named  and  all  security  information  is  left  out  of 
this  document,  where,  in  the  FBI  document,  the  secui'ity  information  is  included. 

Continuing  on  page  726. 

Senator  McCletxan.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  make  a  point  of  order  that  the  docu- 
ment that  is  presented  to  us  here  which  we  have  not  read  if  incomplete — if  it 
contains  onl.v  3  pages  out  of  the  15-page  document — then  the  best  evidence  is 
the  document  itself  which  is  available  unless  it  is  prohibited  by  security  reasons. 
If  it  is  prohibited  by  security  reasons  then  these  excerpts  from  it  are  not  admis- 
sible at  this  hearing.  If  it  is  not  prohibited,  under  the  the  security  order  and 
directive  of  the  President,  then  the  original  document  in  full  and  complete  is 
the  best  evidence  and  should  be  produced. 

I  have  a  note  of  a  possible  deletion  at  this  point,  Mr.  Williams,  and 
then  I  continue  witli  Senator  McCarthy. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  a  deletion  there,  Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  W11.LIAMS.  Yes ;  there  is. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  that  deletion  read? 

Mr.  Wiu.iAMS.  No,  sir. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  103 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  de  Fiiria. 
Mr.  DE  FuRiA  (reading)  : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  agree  considerably  with  what  the 
Senator  from  Arkansas  says  I  would  say  that  I  think  it  should  be  made  clear 
that  we  are  not  now  requesting,  and  never  have  requested,  that  the  security 
information  about  these  specific  individuals  be  made  a  part  of  the  record.  That 
is  in  line  with  the  ruling  of  counsel,  Mr.  Jenkins.  I  do  think  that  the  language 
of  the  letter,  if  this  language  is  correct  and  verbatim — and  I  have  every  reason 
to  believe  it  is — that  the  language  of  the  letter  contains  nothing  of  a  security 
nature  except  that  it  warns,  admonishes  those  in  charge  of  Fort  Monmouth. 

Senator  INIundt.  The  letter  is  not  admissible. 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  Chair  has  stated  that  unless  the  entire  1.5  pages 
could  be  made  a  part  of  the  record,  none  of  it  could.  I  want  to  disagree  with 
that,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  you  can  delete,  as  there  apparently  was  deleted 
in  this  letter,  the  security  reports  on  each  specific  individual.  The  rest  of  the 
letter,  I  think,  is  extremely  important. 

Senator  IMundt.  The  Chair  is  ready  to  rule.  Unless  his  ruling  is  upset  by  his 
colleagues  on  this  committee,  he  will  rule  that  the  counsel  for  the  committee 
should  seek  from  the  Attorney  General  the  permission  suggested  by  Senator 
McClellan  which  has  been  restated  by  him  and  by  the  Chair. 

Then  there  is  a  deletion,  Mr.  Chairman.     We  go  down  to  page  727. 

Mr.  Collier.  This  letter  is  not  a  copy. 

The  Chairman.  Mr,  Williams,  will  you  check  that? 
Mr.  Williams,  How  far  down  do  you  go  to? 
Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  We  begin  again : 

Mr.  Collier.  This  letter  is  not  a  copy. 

Mr.  Williams.  We  do  not  desire  that  read. 
The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  de  Furia. 
Mr.  DE  Furia.  Page  727. 

Mr.  Collier.  This  letter  is  not  a  copy  of  any  document  prepared  by  the  FBI. 
Senator  Jackson.  Or  one  that  he  sent  out? 
Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct. 

Further  down  on  page  727 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  (^hair  says  you 
should  request  of  Mr.  Brownell  permission  to  use  the  entire  15-page  document. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Chair  t(»  i-equest  that  if  you  cannot  use  the  entire  1.5-page 
document — I  assume  he  Avill  rule  against  you  on  that,  because  it  contains  the 
names  of  informants — ask  him  whetlier  or  not  we  can  use  that  portion  of  the 
document  which  was  submitted  yesterday — find  out  whether  this  is  a  verbatim 
copy  of  the  FBI  memorandum  or  letter,  find  if  so,  whether  there  is  any  objection 
to  the  introduction  of  a  part  of  the  document,  omitting  the  names,  which  I 
sul)mitted  yesterday. 

Then  there  is  a  deletion  and  we  continue  with  a  statement  or  a 
question  by  Senator  ]McCarthy  on  the  same  page. 

I  have 

Mr.  Williams.  Go  ahead. 

The  CiiAiii]viAN.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  to  proceed? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  de  Furia. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Continuing  on  page  727 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  have.  Mr.  Jackson  has  made  a  completely  false  state- 
ment. He  said  I  represented  yesterday  that  this  came  from  Mr.  Hoover.  I 
made  it  very  clear  that  I  had  never  received  anything  from  J.  Edgar  Hoover, 
that  this  was  not  received  from  Mr.  Hoover.     Mr.  Jackson  knows  all  that. 


104  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Page  728 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Cliairuian,  a  point  of  order.  Mr.  Jackson  has  tried 
very  deliberately  to  create  the  impression  that  this  did  not  come  from  J.  Edsar 
Hoover.  I  am  sure  the  evidence  will  show  that  this  did  come  from  J.  Edgar 
Hoover,  and  that  there  has  been  omitted  from  it — 

there  is  an  interruption  there. 

We  continue,  Mr.  Williams,  and  with  the  chairman's  permission, 
on  page  729,  a  statement  by  Senator  McCarthy  beginning  with  the 
words,  "I  very  definitely  have,"  is  that  all  right,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Page  729 : 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  very  definitely  have,  of  the  same  nature  as  Mr.  .Taclcson's. 
We  have  a  document  here  which,  according  to  all  the  information  I  have,  is 
verbatim,  a  report  given  from  the  FBI.  It  should  be  in  the  Army  file.  I  sent 
a  wire  this  morning  to  the  Secretary  asking  for  the  addendum  showing  the 
derogatory  material  on  each  individual.  I  think  it  is  important  for  Mr.  Jackson 
not  to  maite  these  statements  and  try  to  create  these  impressions  when  he  hasn't 
seen  the  letter.  If  he  will  look  at  it,  I  believe  he  will  find  each  and  every  word 
is  identical  to  the  original  letter,  with  the  exception  of  the  fact  that  where  there 
is  listed  the  names  of  Foi"t  Monmouth  employees  and  the  word  "derogatory" 
put  after  it  in  the  FBI  report,  you  will  find  the  derogatory  information  and, 
perhaps,  the  names  of  the  informants.  If  that  were  included  in  this  letter,  Mr. 
Chairman,  then  it  would  be  objectionable.  We  would  be  violating  the  rules  by 
submitting  it  to  the  committee.  That  security  information  is  not  in  the  letter. 
The  meat  of  the  letter  is  here,  and  I  would  suggest  that  we  proceed  now  to  exam- 
ine this  young  man  and  see  if  he  can  give  us  this  information  or  not. 

Then  we  continue  on  page  732  with  a  question  by  Senator  Symington. 

The  Chair3ian.  Is  there  a  deletion  at  that  point? 

Mr.  DE  FtJRiA.  There  is  a  deletion,  Mr.  Chairman,  between  729  and 
732. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  cannot  tell  by  just  a  quick  look  Avhether  there  is 
anything  in  those  three  images — perhaps  you  ought  to  give  me  a  minute 
here. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  wish  to  take  time  to  read  it,  we  will  cease 
the  progress  at  this  point. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  make  it  clear  that  I  know  Mr.  de  Furia 
is  reading  it  completely  fairly.  It  is  just  a  question  of  interpretation 
as  to  whether  something  should  go  in  which  might  help  the  investi- 
gation. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  is  inclined  to  be  very  liberal  with  respect 
to  anything  that  you  think  has  any  bearing  on  this  matter.  In  other 
words,  we  want  the  full  and  complete  picture  so  that  nothing  will  be 
out  of  context. 

Mr,  Williams.  I  think  he  can  go  on. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Page  732 : 

Senator  Symington.  Mr.  Collier,  am  I  correct  that  Mr.  J.  Edgar  Hoover  asked 
you  or  suggested  to  this  committee  that  prior  to  the  publication  of  this  document, 
that  it  be — that  the  matter  be  consulted  with  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States  to  see  whether  the  publication  of  the  document  was  in  the  interests  of 
the  security  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct.  Senator  Symington. 

Then  there  is  a  deletion,  Mr.  Chairman,  down  to  page  734,  which 
begins  with  a  question  by  Mr.  Welch,  "Right.  I  think  I  will  do  no 
wrong" 


Mr.  Williams.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  de  Furia. 


KEATIINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  105 

Mr.  DE  Ftjria.  With  the  permission  of  the  chairman,  I  \vill  begin 
reading  again  on  page  734 : 

Mr.  Welch.  Right.  I  think  I  will  do  no  wrong  if  I  read  the  heading  "Federal 
Bureau  of  Investigrtion,  January  26,  1951."     Are  you  following  me,  sir? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Welch.  Then  appeal's  the  words  which  I  read  yesterday  and  which  startled 
me  so  "personal  and  confidential  via  liaison"  ;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Welch.  Then  this  purported  carbon  copy  of  a  letter  has  this  appearing 
"Major  General  Boiling,  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff.  G-2,  Department  of  the  Army, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Sir";  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Welch.  Now,  passing  the  body  of  it  and  going  only  to  the  conclusion  that 
appears  at  the  bottom  of  it  "sincerely  yours,"  and  then  typed  in  capital  letters 
"J.  Edgar  Hoover.  Director";  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Welch.  Mr.  Collier,  as  I  understand  your  testimony,  this  document  that 
I   hold   in   my   hand   is   a   carbon   copy   of   precisely    nothing;    is    that   right? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  will  say  that  Mr.  Hoover  informed  me  that  it  is  not  a  carbon 
copy  of  a  memorandum  prepared  or  sent  by  the  FBI. 

Mr.  Welch.  Let  us  have  it  straight  from  the  shoulder.  So  far  as  you  know 
it  is  a  carbon  copy  of  precisely  nothing? 

Mr.  Collier.  So  far  as  I  know,  it  is,  yes  ;  but  that  again  is  a  conclusion. 

Mr.  Welch.  So  far  as  you  know,  this  document  in  this  courtroom  sprung 
yesterday  by  Senator  McCarthy  is  a  perfect  phony,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Collier.  No,  sir ;  that  is  your  conclusion.  I  will  not  draw  such  a  con- 
clusion. 

Mr.  Welch.  You  just  told  us  it  is  a  carbon  copv  of  precisely  nothing,  haven't 
you? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  have  said  it  is  not  a  copy  of  a  document  in  the  FBL  file.  I  will 
not  say  that  it  is  a  copy  of  nothing  because  if  it  was  typed  as  a  carbon  there 
must  have  been  an  original. 

^Ir.  AVelch.  You  would  think  so,  but  we  can  find  no  trace  of  an  original,  can 
we? 

Mr.  Collier.  Not  yet. 

Mr.  Welch.  Anywhere? 

Mr.  Collier.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Welch.  No,  sir.  If  no  original  of  this  document  can  be  found,  will  you 
go  along  with  me,  sir,  with  my  quaint  English,  when  I  say  it  is  a  copy  of  pre- 
cisely nothing? 

Mr.  Collier.  You  are  assuming  that  the  original  cannot  be  found? 

Mr.  Welch.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Collier.  My  investigation  yesterday  was  to  determine  whether  this  was 
an  authentic  document.  1  have  made  no  investigation  to  determine  whether  the 
original  can  be  found  or  not.    It  may  be  that  it  can  be  found. 

Mr.  Welch,  l^ou  cannot  find  a  copy  of  it  in  the  FBI  place,  can  you? 

Mr.  Collier.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Welch.  Now  you  do  not  on  your  investigation — strike  it  out.  You  are 
not,  as  you  sit  in  this  chair,  in  possession  of  a  single  fact  which  will  allow  you 
to  believe  that  the  document  which  I  now  show  you  is  a  carbon  copy  of  any 
existing  original  letter? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  made  an  examination  yesterday  to  determine  whether  this 
was  a  copy  of  a  document  prepared  or  sent  by  the  FBI.  I  have  not  made  any 
examination  to  determine  whether  it  is  a  copy  of  an  original  now  in  existence. 

Mr.  Welch.  Have  you  any  doubt,  sir,  that  it  was  presented  in  this  room  as 
if  it  were  a  carbon  copy  of  a  letter  signed  J. 'Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  and  ad- 
dressed to  Major  General  Boiling? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  was  present  when  it  was  presented,  and  I  do  not  now  remember 
the  exact  manner  in  which  it  was  presented. 

Mr.  Welch.  Did  you  have  any  doubt,  sir,  that  your  superior,  Mr.  Jenkins, 
was  handed  a  document  which  he  believed  to  be  a  carbon  copy  of  a  letter? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  would  be  for  Mr.  Jenkins  to  &.\y. 

Mr.  Welch.  Did  you  believe  it  was  a  carbon  copy  of  a  letter  when  you  first 
heard  it  in  this  room? 

Mr.  Collier.  It  was  referred  to  as  a  copy  of  a  letter. 

Mr.  Welch.  Yes,  sir. 


106  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Collier.  And  I  observed  it.    I  can  draw  no  further  conclusions  from  it. 
Mr.  Welch.  And  now  as  you  sit  in  this  room,  you  are  unable  to  tell  us  from  all 
the  information  you  have  been  able  to  obtain  last  night V 

May  I  have  a  minute,  sir  ? 
The  Chairman.  You  may. 
(Discussion  off  the  record.) 

The  Chairman.  Tlie  committee  will  now  take  its  recess  until  2  p.  m. 
(Whereupon,  at  11 :  55  a.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  12  p.  m.,  the 
same  clay.) 

AFTERNOON     SESSION 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (chairman),  Johuson  of  Colorado  (vice 
chairman),  Stennis,  Carlson,  Case,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present :  Senator  McCarthy ;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel  to 
the  committee;  Guy  G.  de  Furia,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee ;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  member ; 
Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  K.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator  Watkins' 
staff'  on  loan  to  the  committee ;  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams,  counsel 
to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A.  Neill  and  Brent 
Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume  session. 

Counsel  for  the  committee  will  resume  reading  the  matters  which 
the  committee  takes  judicial  notice  of  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearing. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  With  the  permission  of  the  chairman,  we  desire  to 
resume  reading  at  page  ToG  of  the  same  source  material,    Page  ToG  : 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  make  it  very  clear  that  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
the  Truman  directive,  or  any  other  directive,  will  ijreclude  me  from  examining 
material  bearing  upon  the  security  of  this  Nation.  I  am  very  surprised  when  I 
find  Ml'.  Welch  here  worried  about  disclosing  information  on  Communists,  sitting 
back  and  slyly  approving  the  violation  of  the  law  insofar  as  eavesdropping  is 
concerned  and  monitoring.  So  there  is  no  question  about  Mr.  Collier,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  will  be  no  personal  and  confidential  material  where  it  shows 
that  someone  is  covering  up  and  hiding  Communists. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee that  that  statement  from  Senator  McCarthy  on  page  736  is 
exactly  as  it  appears  in  the  printed  report  of  the  testimony.  Appar- 
ently there  was  some  discre})ancy.  So  we  checked  with  the  olHcial 
transcript,  volume  10,  page  180-1,  May  5,  li)51,  and  find  that  the  cor- 
rect wording  is  as  follows : 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  make  it  very  clear  that  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
the  Truman  directive,  no  directive  will  preclude  nie  from  examining  material 
bearing  upon  the  security  of  this  Nation.  I  am  very  surprised  when  I  find 
Mr.  Welch  here  worried  about  disclosing  information  on  Communists,  sitting 
back  and  slyly  approving  the  violation  of  the  law  insofar  as  eavesdropping  is 
concerned  and  monitoring.  So  there  is  no  question  about  Mr.  Collier,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, there  will  be  no  personal  and  confidential  material  where  it  shows  that 
someone  is  covering  up  and  hiding  Communists. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman 


Mr.  DE  Furia.  And  may  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  called  this  to 
the  attention  of  Mr.  Williams,  and  he  agreed  that  the  words  are  as  I 
just  last  read  them. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  certainly  agree  that  the  substitution  of  "no"  for 
"any  other"  was  a  jn-oper  substitution,  but  I  do  want  to  call  attention 
of  the  Chair  to  the  fact  that  the  last  sentence  which  lias  just  been  read 
by  Mr.  de  Furia  is  also  inaccurate,  and  I  think  a  very  cursory  analysis 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  107 

of  it  would  demonstrate  that,  because  it  is  completely  ^Yitllout  sense. 
Senator  McCarthy  advised  me  that  he  did  not  say  this  sentence : 

So  there  is  no  question  about  Mr.  Ck)llier,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  will  be  no 
personal  and  confidential  material  where  it  shows  that  someone  is  covering  up 
and  hiding  Communists. 

That  is  obviously  meaningless  as  it  is  written  there,  and  it  does  not 
acciu'ately  rej)resent  what  was  said,  because  Mr.  Collier,  although  he 
was  a  witness  on  the  authenticity  of  the  documents,  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  issue  which  has  been  discussed  there. 

I  do  not  think  the  change  is  significant  or  meaningful,  but  in  the 
interests  of  accuracy.  I  think  I  should  call  that  to  your  attention. 

The  Chairman.  Your  explanation  is  in  the  record,  and  we  will  let 
it  stand  that  way.  I  mean  by  that,  we  will  let  the  record  stand.  I 
do  not  mean  that  the  committee  is  accepting  your  interpretation  or 
the  other  at  the  moment.  We  will  let  it  stand  as  the  record  shows,  your 
statement  pointing  out  that  it  seems  inconsistent  and  does  not  seem 
to  be  the  correct  language. 

Mr.  WiLLTAiNis.  What  it  should  be  is,  "So  that  there  is  no  question 
about  this  subject,  Mr.  Chairman." 

The  Chairman.  You  read  it  as  you  think  it  should  be,  so  that  that 
M'ill  be  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Williams  (reading)  : 

So  that  there  is  no  question  about  this  subject,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  will  be 
no  personal  and  confidential  material  where  it  shows  tliat  someone  is  covering 
up  and  hiding  Communists. 

The  Chair^ian.  Proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  shall  continue  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  page  737  : 

Mr.  Collier.  Senator  McCarthy,  may  I  say  that  I,  as  assistant  counsel  to 
Mr.  Jenkins,  am  here  to  get  the  facts.  I  don't  think  it  is  our  purpose  nor  our 
right  to  draw  conclusions  in  any  form.  I  have  examined  this  document,  as  I 
have  so  testified,  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end,  in  order  to  establish  what 
kind  of  document  it  is,  in  order  to  identify  it.     I  have  not  read  the  contents. 

The  part  you  speak  of  is  on  page  2.  I  feel  that  in  view  of  the  security 
requirements  I  should  not  read  that  second  page. 

Senator  IMcCarthy.  I  am  asking  you  to  look  at  the  top  of  page  2,  which, 
contains  nothing  in  regard  to  security,  but  shows  that  the  security  informa- 
tion was  omitted.  I  ask  you  to  look  at  that  parenthetical  expression.  It  is 
very  important  to  establish  that  fact  now,  in  view  of  the  repeated  statements 
by  Mr.  Welch  that  this  was  a  phony  and  that  anyone  had  a  right  to  believe 
that  all  of  the  security  information  was  in  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  important  to  get  at  the  truth  of  this  right  now. 

Mr.  Collier.  Senator  McCarthy,  I  feel  that  I  must  respectfully  decline  to 
read  it  and  determine  those  facts  from  it. 

Passing  on,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  page  738  : 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Collier,  you  say  that  the  Director  told  you  the 
language  was  identical  in  some  respects ;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct,  in  some  respects. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Did  he  tell  you  that  the  language  was  identical  in  all 
respect.s 

Mr.  Collier.  No. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Except  that  this  3-page  document  omitted  the  security 
reports  furnished  by  the  FBI;  that  other  than  that  the  document  is  complete? 

Mr.  Collier.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  state  it  in  that  way. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Well,  now,  what  did  he  tell  you? 

Mr.  Coliier.  He  told  me  that  the  language  is  identical  in  some  respects  and 
that  it  relates  to  the  same  subject-matter ;  that  both  documents  relate  to  the 
same  subject-matter.     That  was  as  far  as  he  felt  he  was  entitled  to  go. 

52461 — 54 8 


108  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Page  740. 

Mr.  AViLLiAMS.  I  think  there  is  some  very  pertinent  language  on 
page  739. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Committee  counsel  did  not  think  so,  Mr.  Chairman, 
but  as  we  have  repeated,  we  have  no  objection  whatever  to  Mr.  Williams 
calling  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  any  excerpts  that  he  thinks 
would  further  clarify  this  situation. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  now,  Mr.  de  Furia,  the  language  that 
he  thinks  should  be  significant  and  should  be  in  the  record  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuKiA.  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  since  I  gave  to  Mr. 
Williams  the  transcripts  from  which  we  were  working,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  on  your  statement  that  you  think  it 
is  pertinent,  I  am  going  to  allow  you  to  read  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  Beginning  at  page  739,  in  the  fifth  paragraph  of  the 
official  printed  report  of  this  investigation : 

Senator,  may  I  ask  counsel  for  the  Army,  so  the  Attorney  General  will  know 
the  attitude  of  the  parties  to  this  dispute,  whether  counsel  for  the  Army  will 
consent  to  having  this  15-page  dociiment  with  the  security  information  deleted 
and  this  document  made  public,  so  that  the  press  and  the  public  can  compare 
the  two  documents? 

I  am  just  reading  this  because  the  next  part  is  necessary. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  know.  I  just  asked  whether  or  not  we  can  transmit 
to  the  Attorney  General  the  information  that  both  counsel  for  Mr.  Stevens 
and  Mr.  Adams,  as  well  as  Senator  McCarthy,  request  that  they  make  the  15-page 
document  public  if  there  is  deleted  any  seciirity  information,  and  that  also  we 
make  public  the  document  which  I  have  submitted  after  deleteing  the  names  on 
page  2. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  cover  all  that  you  think  ought  to  be 
added  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Page  740 : 

Mr.  CoHN.  Mr.  Collier,  is  this  much  very  clear  from  what  you  have  been 
able  to  tell  us  at  this  time :  that  on  the  date  Senator  McCarthy  mentioned 
yesterday,  January  26,  1951,  there  was  transmitted,  under  the  name  of  John 
Edgar  Hoover,  to  Army  Intelligence  a  document? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  will  restate  it,  Mr.  Cohn.  Under  date  of  .January  2G,  1951, 
a  15-page  FBI  memorandum  was  prepared.  The  original  of  that  memorandum 
was  transmitted  to  General  Boiling's  office  via  liason  on  January  27,  and  the 
carbon  copy  to  General  Carroll's  office  via  liaison  on  the  29th. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Sir,  did  this  memorandum  go  to  the  Army  under  the  name  of 
John  Edgar  Hoover? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir.  On  the  memorandum  there  are  the  printed  words 
"date,  to,  from,  and  subject"  :  and  beside  the  word  "to"  was  the  identification, 
"IMajor  General  A.  R.  Boiling,  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  Department  of 
the  Army,  the  Pentagon,  Washington,  D.  C,"  and  beside  the  word  "from," 
"John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation." 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  say  printed.     Were  they  not  typewritten? 

Mr.  Collier.  They  were  typed. 

Mr.  Cohn.  Typewritten  words,  "from,  John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  Federal 
Bureau  <if  Investigation"? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And,  sir.  Is  it  a  fact,  on  the  basis  of  what  you  can  tell  us  now, 
the  subject  matter  of  this  15-page  memorandum  from  Mr.  Hoover  to  the  Army 
on  that  date  was  Aaron  Coleman,  then  at  Fort  IMonmouth,  espionaging? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  will  say  tliis  :  That  after  the  word  "from"  and  the  designa- 
tion "John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,"  there 
followed  the  word  "subject"  and  typed  thereon  was  "Aaron  Hyman  Coleman, 
espionage — R".     For  your  information  the  "R"  stands  for  Russian. 

Mr.  CoHN.  The  "R"  stands  for  Russian. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  109 

Now  we  are  passing,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission,  sir,  to 
page  741,  reading  as  follows : 

Mr.  CoHN.  I  think  we  left  at  this  point  this  memorandum  sent  under  the  name 
of  John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director  of  the  FBI,  to  the  Army,  dated  January  26,  and 
I  believe  you  said  delivered  on  January  27,  sir? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Bears  the  hearting  "Aaron  Coleman,  espionage-R." 

Mr.  Collier.  Aaron  Hyman  Coleman. 

Mr.  CoHN.  ••Espionage-R,"  and  you  now  tell  us  that  the  word  "R"  stands  for 
Russian? 

Mr.  Collier.  Mr.  Hoover  told  me  that  the  "R"  stands  for  Russian. 

Mr.  CoHN.  So  you  can  tell  us  this  morning  that  the  15-page  memorandum 
was  a  communication  from  Mr.  Hoover  to  the  Army  concerning  Aaron  Coleman, 
and  Russian  espionage  ;  is  that  a  fair  statement? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  what  the  "to"  and  the  "from"  read,  and  the  subject  is 
Aaron  Hyman  Coleman,  Espionage-R. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Can  you,  Mr.  Collier,  as  having  been  present  in  the  room  and  a 
member  of  Mr.  Jenkins'  staff,  tell  us  from  the  testimony  of  yesterday  on  the 
public  record  that  on  the  day  this  memorandum  was  sent  over  from  Mr.  Hoover, 
Aaron  Hyman  Coleman  was  the  section  head  in  the  secret  radar  laboratory  at 
Fort  Monmouth? 

Mr.  Collier.  Mr.  Cohn,  I  cannot  tell  you  that  of  my  own  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  CoHN.  I  would  ask  the  Chair,  then,  to  take  judicial  or  chairmanwise 
notice  of  the  public  hearings  of  this  committee  of  December  8,  1953,  which  indi- 
cate that.  I  believe  I  read  the  job  description  of  Mr.  Coleman  into  the  record 
yesterday. 

Now,  sir,  can  you  tell  us  whether  Senator  McCarthy  stated  with  complete 
accuracy  yesterday  that  this  15-page  memorandum,  that  this  memorandum  by 
Mr.  Hoover,  was  a  warning  to  the  Army  that  at  the  secret  radar  laboratories 
;at  Fort  Monmouth  a  group  of  associates  of  Julius  Rosenberg  and  people  with 
Communist  records  were  operating  on  a  secret  link  and  chain  radar  project  at 
-that  time? 

Mr.  Collier.  Mr.  Cohn,  I  cannot  tell  you  of  my  own  personal  knowledge.  I 
was  busy  on  some  other  matters.  I  was  in  and  out  of  the  room.  I  didn't  hear 
that  complete  statement.     The  record  would  speak  for  itself. 

We  now  pass,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  page  749  of  part  20  on  May  5, 1954, 
reading  as  follows • 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman— — 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Sorry,  sir.  Are  you  skipping  to  749,  now,  did  you 
say? 

The  Chairman.  Apparently  so,  yes,  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  In  order  to  avoid  my  interrupting  Mr.  de  Furia, 
which  I  consistently  hesitate  to  do,  I  would  suggest  this,  if  I  may,  Mr. 
Chairman.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  read  these  parts  that  I  feel  are 
germane  now.  So  long  as  all  the  Collier  testimony  may  be  considered 
of  record,  I  would  be  satisfied.  I  cannot  stop  here  now  and  read  7 
pages  without  delaying  this  hearing,  which  I  am  loath  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  not  read  all  the  Collier  testimony,  but  on 
the  advice  of  Mr.  Chadwick,  I  think  it  would  be  fair  to  rule  that  it  all 
can  be  made  a  part  of  the  record,  and  it  will  appear  as  appendix  No.  I. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  in  the  reading  Mr.  de  Furia  or  Mr.  Chad- 
wick do  not  include  it  all,  the  rest  of  it  can  be  supplied  so  that  the 
record  can  be  complete. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Page  749 : 


"to^ 


Mr.  Jenkins.  Are  you  now  prepared  to  answer  the  questions  asked  of  me  by 
Senator  McCarthy  and  Mr.  Cohn  during  the  noon  hour? 


110  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

I  believe,  though,  that  I  should  recount  to  the  committee  the  conversation  that 
I  had  with  Mr.  Hoover.  At  the  conclusion  of  that,  of  course,  any  questions  can 
be  asked. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  You  are  talking  about  the  conversation  between  you  and  Mr. 
Hoover  during  the  noon  hour? 

Mr.  Collier.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Will  you  now  relate  in  detail  that  conversation  which  I  think 
will  answer  Senator  McCarthy's  questions? 

Mr.  Collier.  Upon  your  instructions,  I  communicated  with  the  FBI  and  ex- 
pressed my  desire  to  talk  with  Mr.  Hoover.  Within  a  few  minutes  thereafter  Mr. 
Hoover  called  me  on  the  telephone.  He  stated  that  the  letter  to  General  Boiling 
of  January  2(),  1951,  was  classified  by  the  word  "Confidential"  and  he  does  not 
feel  that  he  has  any  right  to  declassify  it  or  to  discuss  its  contents.  May  I  point 
out  at  this  time  that  the  FBI  in  1951  did  not  use  the  classifications  normally 
attributed  to  the  military.  That  is,  "Restricted,"  "Confidential,"  "Secret,"  and 
"Top  Secret."  They  used  either  the  characterization  "Confidential"  or  "Per- 
sonal and  Confidential."  Therefore,  that  confidential,  in  Mr.  Hoover's  opinion 
and  in  his  statement  to  me,  is  the  highest  classification  that  can  be  put  on  a 
document  by  the  FBI. 

We  pass  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  page  751 : 

Mr.  Collier.  On  page  2  following  the  list  of  names  is  paragraph  7,  whicli 
paragraph  extends  over  to  page  3  and  is  identical  in  both  documents.  On  page  3, 
the  last  paragraph  No.  S  is  identical  in  both  documents.  Mr.  Hoover  advised 
that  he  could  not  make  any  further  comment  upon  the  substance  of  either  of 
tliese  documents ;  that  it  is  still  classified,  and  that  he  still  respectfully  referred 
the  committee  to  the  Attorney  General.  He  further  advised  that  the  original 
15-page  document  was  furnished  to  General  Boiling's  office  by  liaison  representa- 
tive on  January  27  and  that  the  original  and  one  copy  went  to  General  Boiling's 
office,  and  the  FBI  this  morning  determined  from  that  office  that  the  original 
and  one  copy  are  in  their  files. 

A  carbon  copy  was  delivered  liy  a  liaison  representative  on  January  29,  1951, 
to  the  Office  of  Maj.  Gen.  .Toseph  F.  Carroll,  United  States  Air  Force.  The  FBI 
this  morning  ascertained  that  that  copy  is  presently  in  the  files  of  the  Air  Force. 

There  were,  in  addition  to  those  three  copies,  a  yellow  tickler  copy,  a  white 
copy,  and  the  file  copy,  a  yellow  copy,  and  both  of  those  are  presently  in  the  files 
of  t^he  FBI. 

All  copies  that  were  prepared  by  the  FBI  are  present  and  accounted  for. 

We  pass  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  page  754,  sir : 

Mr.  Collier.  From  the  information  in  my  possession,  I  will  say  that  paragraphs 
1,  2,  3,  and  4  are  the  same;  5  is  different,  containing  a  parenthetical  statement  in 
place  of  a  paragraph  ;  6  is  the  same ;  and  following  6  in  this  document  before  me, 
the  21/4  page  is  a  list  of  names  taking  up  about  a  half  page,  whereas  in  the 
15-page  document  there  would  have  been  the  names  and  factual  information 
taking  up  many  pages. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Right. 

Mr.  Collier.  That  thereafter,  following  that,  paragraphs  7  and  8  are  the  same. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Just  so  we  will  have  this  one  final  question,  is  it  the  last 
paragraph  in  the  letter? 

Mr.  Collier.  That  is  correct,  sir,  and  was  the  last  paragraph  in  the  15-page 
document. 

There  is  a  deletion  here,  and  we  continue  with  Senator  McClellan. 
Senator  McCleUan,  on  pages  754  and  755 : 

Just  one  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

From  what  you  have  seen  of  the  two  documents,  the  one  that  has  been  pre- 
sented here,  and  the  one  that  you  discussed  with  Mr.  Hoover,  I  will  ask  you  to 
state  whether  it  would  be  possible  for  anyone  to  compose  or  present  the  docu- 
ment now  before  us  except  that  they  had  access  to  the  original  document  or  the 
original  copy  thereof  which  still  remains  confidential  and  restricted. 

Mr.  Collier.  You  are  asking  for  my  personal  opinion  on  that? 

Senator  McClellan.  From  what  you  have  observed  of  the  two.  Would  it  be 
possible,  except  that  the  author  of  the  document  now  before  us  nuist  have  had 
access  to  the  original  or  the  original  copy  thereof? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  111 

Mr.  Collier.  I  would  say  that  since  seven  of  the  paragraphs  are  identical, 
that  the  person  who  wrote  this  document  must  have  had  access  to  the  original, 
l)ecause  the  identical  language  is  contained  therein. 

Senator  McClellan.  It  is  still  restricted  so  far  as  the  FBI  is  concerned? 

Mr.  Collier.  Mr.  Hoover  told  me,  and  as  I  have  stated  to  the  committee  at  the 
beginning  of  this  testimony,  that  it  carries  the  highest  classification  the  Bureau 
can  place  on  a  document,  confidential,  that  he  does  not  feel  that  he  has  any  right 
to  declassify  it. 

We  pass  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  page  759 : 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Senator  McCarthy,  yesterday  afternoon  there  was  presented  to 
me,  to  be  read — and  I  desire  to  state  that  I  hastily  read  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
that  my  mind  was  completely  shed  of  all  knowledge  of  its  contents  last  evening, 
which  perhaps  may  absolve  me  of  guilty  knowledge. 

Senator  Mundt.  Immunity  of  which  the  Senator  has  divested  himself  may  be 
imposed  upon  you  temporarily. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  There  was  handed  to  me,  Senator  McCarthy,  a  letter  dated 
.January  26,  1951,  and  referred  to  herein  as  a  2i/4-page  letter.  As  I  recall,  Sena- 
tor, that  letter  was  handed  to  me  by  you;  is  that  correct? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  correct.     It  was  passed  along  the  table  by  me. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  am  sorry,  I  did  not  get  your  last  answer. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  said,  yes,  it  was  at  least  passed  along  the  table  from 
nie  to  you. 

Mr.  Jenkins. — 

There  is  a  deletion  here,  sir. 

Then  we  continue  on  the  same  page,  759 : 

Mr.  Jenkins.  That  letter  was  used  as  a  basis  by  me  in  further  examination  or 
cross-examination  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Army. 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Senator  McCarthy,  you  are  bound  to  be  aware  of  the  fact  that 
some  attack  has  been  made  upon  that  letter.  I  want  to  ask  you  at  this  time  to 
tell  this  committee  all  of  your  knowledge,  without  my  asking  you  any  specific 
questions  at  this  time,  with  respect  to  the  214 -page  letter,  particularly  where  you 
obtained  possession  of  it,  when  you  obtained  possession  of  it,  whence  it  came,  and 
give  any  other  knowledge  that  you  may  have  pertaining  to  that  2% -page  letter. 

Senator  McCarthy.  First  let  me  make  it  very  clear,  Mr.  Jenkins  and  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  I  will  not  under  any  circumstances  reveal  the  source  of  any 
information  which  I  get  as  chairman  of  the  committee.  One  of  the  reasons  why 
I  have  been  successful,  I  believe,  in  some  extent,  in  exposing  communism,  is  be- 
cause the  people  who  give  me  information  from  within  the  Government  know 
that  their  confidence  will  not  be  violated.  It  will  not  be  violated  today.  There 
was  an  attempt  to  get  me  to  violate  that  confidence  some  2  or  3  years  ago,  before 
the  Tydings  committee.  I  want  to  make  it  very  clear  that  I  want  to  notify  the 
people  who  give  me  information  that  there  is  no  way  on  earth  that  any  com- 
mittee, any  force,  can  get  me  to  violate  the  confidence  of  those  people. 

May  I  say  that  that  is  a  rule  which  every  investigative  agency  follows.  Mr. 
J.  Edgar  Hoover  insists  that  no  informants  be  disclosed  and  brought  up  in 
public.  They  will  not  be  brought  up  today,  aside  from  that.  I  will  give  you  the 
information  that  you  request,  Mr.  Jenkins.  This  came  to  me  from  someone 
Avithin  the  Army. 

As  I  recall  the  time,  I  do  not  recall  the  date,  I  recall  he  stated  very  clearly 
the  reason  why  he  was  .giving  me  this  information  was  because  he  was  deeply 
disturbed  because  even  through  there  was  repeated  reports  from  the  FBI  to  the 
effect  that  there  was  Communist  infiltration,  indications  of  espionage  in  the 
top-secret  laboratories,  the  radar  laboratories,  that  nothing  was  being  done,  he 
felt  that  his  duty  to  his  country  was  above  any  duty  to  any  Truman  directive 
to  the  effect  that  he  could  not  disclose  this  information. 

And  may  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  counsel,  now  that  I  am  on  the  stand  it 
has  now  been  established  that  this  is  a  completely  accurate  I'esume  of  all  of  the 
information  in  that  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  report,  but  that  our  in- 
formant, whoever  he  was,  was  very  careful  not  to  include  any  security  informa- 
tion. I  give  him  credit  for  that.  I  call  the  Chair's  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  security  information  in  this,  and  I  urge,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  be 
made  available  to  the  public. 


112  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

No.  2,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  Mr.  Jenkins,  I  know  I  have  objected  to  long- 
winded  answers,  but  may  I  just  answer  you  one  bit  further?  You  said  to  go 
ahead  in  chronological  fashion. 

I  received  information  also  to  the  effect  and,  Roy,  check  with  me  on  this,  that 
in  1949  there  was  a  report  made  of  the  same  nature  from  the  FBI  complaining 
of  what  would  appear  to  be  apparently  espionage,  September  15,  1950,  October 
27,  1950,  December  1950,  again  December  1950,  again  June  5,  1951,  January  20, 
1951 — I  believe  that  is  the  one  we  have  here — February  13,  1951,  February  1952, 
June  1952,  September  1952,  January  1953,  April  10,  1953,  April  21,  19.53,  and  the 
young  man  who  gave  me  this  information  was  deeply  disturbed,  that  is  why  he 
gave  it,  because  there  was  no  action  taken  by  the  Army  to  get  rid  of  individuals 
after  the  FBI  had  given  a  complete  report. 

Mr.  Collier.  Senator  McCarthy,  I  am  afraid  that  is  a  conclusion  you  will 
have  to  draw.  I  do  not  feel  that  I  should.  I  will  say  that  in  substance  the 
paragraphs  are  as  I  stated.     The  difference  in  form  I  have  also  stated. 

Mr.  Jenkins  Is  that  the  end  of  your  answer.  Senator? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  the  end  of  the  answer. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Then  do  we  understand,  Senator  McCai^thy,  that  you  did  not 
get  the  2^/4 -page  document  from  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  not  only,  Mr.  Welch,  did  not  get  this  from  the  FBI,  but 
let  me  make  it  clear  that  I 

That  sentence,  apparently,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  incomplete. 

Mr.  "Williams.  May  we  have  the  same  ruling  on  Senator  McCarthy's 
testimony  as  we  had  a  moment  ago  on  Mr.  Collier's  testimony,  that 
all  of  it  may  be  considered  of  record  here,  although  Mr.  de  Pyuria  is 
reading  only  such  portions  as  he  has  excerpted. 

The  Chairman.  You  say,  all  of  his  testimony — you  mean  the  entire 
examination  of  Senator  McCarthy  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  All  of  his  testimony  as  I  read  it  concerns  this  docu- 
ment.    And  as  I  do  not  want  to  burden 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  all  of  his  testimony — pardon  me,  so  that 

I  get  it  clear — with  respect  to  this  document  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  mean  his  other  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  No,  just  this  testimony  which  Mr.  de  Furia  is  read- 
ing from  now. 

The  Chairman.  We  see  no  objection  to  it.  It  will  be  considered  as 
having  been  read  into  the  record,  and  if  it  is  not  all  read  by  Mr.  de 
Furia,  counsel  for  the  committee,  we  will  have  it  inserted.  You 
indicate  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  it ;  will  you  do  that,  please  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  sure  that  it  is  correct  by  you — we  want  you 
to  check  to  see  that  it  is  all  there. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  will  have  it  read- — I  just  want  to  make  sure  that  the 
printed  testimony  of  Senator  McCarthy  on  this  stage  is  included  in 
the  record. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  it  will  be  ordered  printed  as  appendix 

II  to  this  record. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  de  Furia  has  asked  me  to  spell  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  will  turn  to  page  761  of  the  same  transcript,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins  (to  Mr.  Welch).  Then,  Senator,  yon  did  not  get  the  2i^-page 
document  from  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  I  am  not  going  to  ask  you,  and  I  did  not  intend  to  ask  you  the 
name  of  the  individual  who  gave  you  that  document. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  thank  you. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  But,  as  I  do  understand  it,  Senator  McCarthy,  and  we  are 
trying  to  pursue  this  question  to  its  logical  end  so  that  the  committee  may  know 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  113 

all  of  the  facts,  that  2i/l-page  document  was  delivered  to  you  by  someone  from 
the  Army? 

►Senator  McCarthy.  Yes.     I  can  go  a  step  further.  Mr.  Jenkins. 
_     Mr.  Jenkins.  And  perhaps  in  the  Intelligence  Department?     Can  vou  go  that 
far? 

Senator  McCarthy.  An  officer  in  the  Intelligence  Department. 

'Mr.  Jenkins.  Very  well. 

Senator,  when  was  that  letter,  that  2%-page  document  delivered  to  you? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  will  have  to  consult  with  counsel  on  that,  if  I  may. 

I\Ir.  Jenkins.  Very  well :  you  are  entitled  to  that. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Jenkins,  I  would  have  difficulty  giving  you  an  exact 
date,  but  it  was  early  last  sprins',  roughly  a  year  ago.  Counsel  says  he  thinks 
May  or  .Tune,  and  Mr.  Carr  says  he  thinks  also,  perhaps,  in  June.  I  think  it 
was  earlier.  I  think  we  had  it  before  Mr.  CaiT  came  with  us ;  is  that  right, 
Frank? 

Mr.  Jenkins.  AVhen  it  was  delivered  to  you  last  spring,  approximately  a  year 
ago,  which  would  be  in  early  May  1953,  were  you  then  advised.  Senator,  that 
it  was  not  a  coiiy  of  an — an  exact  copy — of  the  15-pag9  document  in  the  files 
of  the  Intelligence  Department,  but  a  condensation  of  it,  as  we  would  call  it? 
That  is,  what  information  did  you  receive  at  that  time  with  respect  to  this 
2 M -page  document  in  relation  to  a  15-page  document,  if  you  had  any  such 
information? 

Senator  McCarthy.  May  I  say,  Mr.  Jenkins,  as  I  recall,  I  discussed  with 
the  officer  who  delivered  this  the  fact  that  the  document  itself  shows  that 
there  has  been  deleted  security  information.    That  will  appear  on  page  2 — 

Then  going  to  page  763  of  the  same : 

Senator  McClkllan.  Just  one  question.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  this 
document  was  delivered  to  you  as  chaimian  of  the  committee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  was  chairman.  In  what  capacity  it  was  being  delivered 
I  don't  know.    I  was  chairman  of  the  committee. 

Senator  McClellan.  I  ask  you  now,  do  you  regard  it  as  a  committee  docu- 
ment or  as  a  personal  document?    What  is  it? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  is  available  to  the  committee. 

From  pages  763  and  764 : 

Senator  Dirksen.  Mr.   Chairman. 

Senator  INIcCarthy,  is  it  unusual  or  extraordinary  for  confidential  documents 
of  this  nature  to  come  to  you  either  as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Permanent 
Investigating  Committee  or  as  an  individual  Senator? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  is  a  daily  and  nightly  occurrence  for  me  to  receive 
information  from  people  in  Government  in  regard  to  Communist  infiltration. 

From  page  764  of  the  same : 

Senator  Jackson.  Was  it  delivered  to  you  personally  or  to  any  one  of  the 
staff  initially? 

Senator  McCarthy.  There  may  have  been  some  member  of  the  staff  present; 
I  don't  know.     The  letter  came  into  my  possession  personally. 

Senator  Jackson.  You  do  not  know  whether  your  informant  gave  it  to  you 
directly  or  a  member  of  the  staff'  received  it  first  and  then  gave  it  to  you? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  reasonably  certain.  Scoop,  that  this  was  handed  to 
me  personally.  Keep  in  mind  that  I  talk  to  so  many  people  every  day  that  I  just 
cannot  remember  who  handed  me  something  a  year  ago. 

Senator  Jackson.  I  mean,  to  your  best  knowledge  and  belief  it  came  to  you 
personally  and  not  through  the  staff? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  correct. 

At  page  768 : 

Mr.  Welch.  Will  you  tell  us  where  you  were  when  you  got  it? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No. 

Mr.  Welch.  Were  you  in  Washington? 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  answer  was  I  would  not  tell  you,  I  would  not  give 
you  any  information  which  would  allow  you  to  identify  my  informant.  That  has 
been  the  rule  of  this  committee. 

Mr.  Welch.  How  soon  after  you  got  it  did  you  show  it  to  anyone? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  don't  remember. 


114  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Welch.  To  whom  did  you  first  show  it? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  don't  recall. 

Mr.  Welch.  Can  you  think  of  the  name  of  anyone  to  whom  you  showed  it? 

Senator  McCarthy,  I  assume  that  it  was  passed  on  to  my  stafE,  most  likely. 

Page  769 : 

Mr.  Welch.  Mr.  Senator,  when  it  was  handed  to  you,  was  it  put  in  the  files  of 
the  subcommittee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  assume  it  was. 

Mr.  Welch.  Like  any  other  paper? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Like  any  other  of  a  thousand  of  papers. 

Mr.  Welch.  And  it  became  a  document  belonging  to  the  subcommittee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  now  belongs  to  the  subcommittee. 

From  pages  819,  820,  and  821  of  the  hearing  on  May  6,  1954,  testi- 
mony of  Robert  A.  Collier : 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  at  this  time  that  my  assistant 
counsel,  Mr.  Prewitt,  interrogate  the  witness. 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Tom  Prewitt  will  take  over  as  counsel  for  the  committee 
and  interrogate  Mr.  Collier. 

Mr.  Prewitt.  Mr.  Collier,  at  the  iustance  of  the  committee,  did  you,  on  yester- 
day, deliver  the  2i/4-page  reported  copy  of  a  memorandum  from  the  Federal 
Bureau  of  Investigation  to  the  oflice  of  Mr.  Herbert  Brownell,  with  the  request 
that  he  give  this  committee  an  opinion  on  the  question  of  whether  or  not  that 
information  could  be  released  publicly? 

IVIr.  Collier.  I  did.  At  approximately  5  :15  yesterday  afternoon,  I  delivered 
a  letter  from  Senator  Mundt  together  with  the  2i/i-page  document,  which  I  per- 
sonally handed  to  Mr.  Robert  Minor,  assistant  to  the  Deputy  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Prewitt.  Do  you  have  an  opinion  in  writing  from  Mr.  Brownell? 

Mr.  Collier.  I  do.     It  was  delivered  at  approximately  12  o'clock  today. 

Mr.  Prewitt.  Will  you  read  it? 

Mr.  Collier.  This  is  a  letter 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  wonder  if  we  can  fii'st  have  Mr.  Mundt's  letter,  so  we  can 
understand  what  the  answer  is. 

Senator  Mundt.  You  may  read  my  letter  of  transmittal  first. 

Mr.  Collier.  Mr.  Prewitt  has  that. 

Mr.  Prewitt.  This  letter  is  dated  May  5,  1954,  and  addressed  to  the  Honorable 
Herbert  Brownell,  Jr.,  United  States  Attorney  General,  Department  of  Justice, 
AVashington,  D.  C. : 

"As  chairman  of  the  Special  Investigating  Subcommittee  and  by  its  direction, 
I  request  your  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  contents  or  any  part  thereof 
can  be  released  by  this  committee  to  the  public  of  the  following  documents  : 

"1.  A  ir)-page  interdepartmental  memorandum  elated  January  26,  1951,  from 
John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  to  Maj.  Gen. 
A.  R.  Boiling,  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  Department  of  the  Army,  the 
Pentagon,  Washington,  D.  C. — Subject :  Aaron  Coleman,  Espionage — R.  This 
document  Avas  classified  'Confidential.' 

"2.  A  214-page  letter  dated  January  26,  1951,  from  J.  Edgar  Ploover,  Director, 
to  Major  General  Boiling,  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  Department  of  the  Army, 
Washington,  D.  C.  This  document  was  classified  'Personal  and  Confidential.' 
This  document  was  furnished  to  the  committee  on  May  4  by  Senator  .Joseph  R. 
McCarthy  and  is  being  furnished  to  you  for  your  perusal  by  the  bearer  of  this 
letter,  ]Mr.  Robert  A.  Collier,  assistant  counsel  of  the  Special  Investigating 
Subcommittee. 

'"Your  expeditious  attention  to  this  matter  will  indeed  be  appreciated. 

"With  best  wishes  and  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am, 
"Cordinally  yours, 

"(Signed)     Karl  E.  Mundt." 

Mr.  Collier.  The  communication  from  the  Attorney  General  is  on  the  letter- 
head of  the  Oflice  of  the  Attorney  General,  Washington,  D.  C,  dated  May  6, 
1954: 

Hon.  Karl  E.  Mundt, 

Viiited  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator  :  Upon  receipt  of  your  letter  of  May  5,  I  inquired  concerning 
the  15-page  memorandum  referred  to  therein,  and  was  advised  that  under  date 
of  January  26,  19.51,  a  15-page  memorandum  was  addressed  to  Maj.  Gen.  A.  R. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  115 

Boiling,  Assistant  Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  with  a  copy  to  Maj.  Gen.  Joseph  F.  Carroll, 
Director,  Special  Investigations,  the  Inspector  General,  USAF,  by  Mr.  J.  Edgar 
Hoover,  Director  of  the  FBI.  This  memorandum  is  classified  "Confidential," 
which  means,  under  existing  law  that  its  contents  must  not  be  disclosed  "in, 
the  best  interests  of  the  national  security."  It  was  delivered  by  hand  to  the 
appropriate  officials  of  the  Air  Force  and  the  Army. 

I  inquired  further  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  Federal  Bureavi  of  Inves- 
tigation or  any  person  on  its  behalf  had  ever  authorized  the  delivery  of  this 
memorandum  to  others,  and  was  advised  that  the  FBI  has  never  released  or 
authorized  the  release  of  the  memorandum  or  any  portion  thereof  to  anyone 
except  as  above  stated. 

The  question  as  to  whether  or  not  this  memorandum  can  now  be  declassified 
and  made  public  has  been  presented  to  me  by  your  letter. 

The  FBI  has  a  duty  as  the  principal  intelligence  agency  of  the  Government, 
operating  within  the  United  States  and  Territorial  possesions,  to  call  to  the 
attention  of  other  agencies  of  the  executive  branch  of  Government  information 
of  interest  to  such  agencies.  This  is  particularly  true  insofar  as  the  investigative 
and  intelligence  branches  of  the  armed  services  are  concerned.  The  Director 
of  the  FBI  and  other  intelligence  and  investigative  agencies  must  be  free  to 
exchange  information,  one  with  the  other,  without  the  fear  that  information  of 
a  classified  nature  will  be  made  public.  The  FBI  with  its  enormous  responsi- 
bilities to  the  President,  the  Congress,  and  the  American  public  must  have  the 
fullest  cooperation  from  all  persons  who  possess  information  bearing  upon  the 
internal  security  of  our  country.  This  it  cannot  have  unless  it  is  in  a  position 
to  give  assurances  that  its  files  will  be  kept  confidential. 

It  has  been  the  consistent  and  I  believe  wise  policy  of  the  Department  of 
Justice,  therefore,  not  to  disclose  the  contents  of  FBI  reports  or  memoranda  or 
any  part  thereof.  The  only  exception  has  been  in  the  rare  case  where  the 
information  contained  therein  has  been  fully  testified  to  by  a  witness  or  wit- 
nesses in  court  or  before  congressional  committees  under  oath,  so  that  no  element 
of  disclosure  was  in  fact  involved,  and  where  no  confidential  sources  of  informa- 
tion or  investigative  techniques  would  be  disclosed. 

The  15-page  memorandum,  if  made  public,  would  reveal  confidential  sources 
of  information  on  the  FBI,  and  confidential  investigative  techniques.  It  con- 
tains the  names  of  persons  against  whom  no  derogatory  material  has  been 
shown  and  unevaluated  data  as  to  others.  Its  publication  would  be  harmful 
to  matters  now  under  consideration. 

I  must  therefore  conclude  that  the  memorandum  should  not  be  declassified 
and  that  publication  of  the  memorandum  would  be  contrary  to  the  public 
interest. 

Your  second  request  refers  to  a  2%-i)i\ge  documents,  dated  January  26,  1951, 
a  copy  of  which  was  delivered  to  us  by  Mr.  Robert  A.  Collier,  assistant  counsel 
of  your  subcommittee,  and  which  is  returned  herewith.  This  documents  pur- 
ports to  be  a  copy  of  a  letter  with  a  salutation :  "Ma.lor  General  Boiling,  Assist- 
ant Chief  of  Staff,  G-2,  Department  of  the  Army,  Washington,  D.  C,  Sir :"  It 
is  marked  "Personal  and  Confidential."  It  closes  with  the  following  type- 
written signature :  "Sincerely  yours,  J.  Edgar  Hoover,  Director." 

Mr.  Hoover  has  examined  the  document  and  has  advised  me  that  he  never 
wrote  any  such  letter.  However,  this  document  does  contain  phraseology  which 
is  identical  with  words  and  paragraphs  with  those  contained  in  the  15-page 
memorandum  referred  to  previously.  In  addition  this  docmnents  contains  the 
listing  of  names  identical  with  names  contained  in  the  15-page  memorandum. 

After  these  names  there  appear  the  words  "derogatory"  or  "no  derogatory" 
which  were  not  contained  in  the  original  memorandum.  Although  the  214-page 
document  purports  to  be  a  letter  signed  by  J.  Edgar  Hoover,  Director  of  the 
FBI,  these  evaluations  of  "derogatory"  or  "no  derogatory"  were  not  made  by 
him  nor  by  anyone  on  his  behalf.  In  fact,  there  is  nothing  contained  in  the 
2% -page  document  to  show  who  made  such  evaluations.  In  view  of  these  facts 
and  because  the  document  constitutes  an  unauthorized  use  of  information  which 
is  classified  as  "confidential,"  and  for  the  reasons  previously  stated,  it  is  my 
opinion  that  it  should  not  be  made  public. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Herbert  Brownell,  Jr., 

Attorney  General. 

There  is  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  letter  is  marked  "Exhibit 
No.  16." 


116  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

From  pages  3080  to  3083  of  the  stenographic  transcript,  volume 
18  of  the  hearing  on  Ma}^  17,  1954 : 

Senator  Mundt.  We  will  begin  tliis  morning  by  annoxuicing  that  the  Chair  has 
received  liis  reply  from  the  Attorney  General  to  a  letter  which  was  written 
some  time  ago  in  connection  with  the  so-called  .SVt-page  document,  and  in  the 
interest  of  time  I  shall  not  read  my  letter  of  May  10  in  its  entirety.  It  is  a 
little  long.  Btit  I  will  ask  to  include  it  in  the  record  as  an  exhibit  appropriately 
marked  and  I  shall  read  the  significant  passages. 

(The  letter  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  18"  and  received  in  evi- 
dence. ) 

Senator  Mundt.  For  the  purposes  of  recapitulation,  you  will  recall  that  this 
dealt  with  the  214-page  document — by  the  way,  it  has  been  returned,  and  I  will 
ask  that  it  be  passed  down  to  Senator  McCarthy,  since  it  is  his  property — - 
in  which,  paraphrasing  my  letter,  I  asked  the  Attorney  General  whether  his 
admonition  against  publishing  or  releasing  the  contents  of  that  document  in 
toto  held  for  all  portions  and  all  paragraphs.  The  significant  part  of  my  letter 
after  reviewing  my  previous  interrogatory  of  the  Attorney  General,  was  this : 

"Would  it  be  possilile  for  you  to  authorize  or  clear  for  use  as  an  exhibit  be- 
fore our  subcommittee  any  of  the  paragraphs  or  portions  of  the  enclosed  214- 
page  document?  It  has  occurred  to  some  members  of  the  subcommittee  that 
the  fact  that  the  214,-page  document  may  contain  the  names  of  some  of  those 
still  under  investigation  or  being  used  as  informants  could  he  the  l»asis  on  which 
you  requested  the  contents  be  not  divulged.  If  so,  perhaps  such  names  could 
be  deleted  and  other  portions  of  the  document  released. 

"Will  you  please  write  me  your  reaction  to  this  request,  and  if  you  feel  it  is 
against  the  best  security  interests  of  the  United  States  to  permit  any  portion 
at  all  of  the  2H-page  document  to  be  used  as  an  exhibit  before  our  subcom- 
mittee, I  am  sure  it  will  be  helpful  to  us  if  you  will  give  your  specific  reasons 
for  making  such  a  determination  We,  of  course,  do  not  want  to  make  public 
anything  which  is  deemed  to  be  injurious  to  our  national  interest  to  disclose, 
but  in  our  search  for  truth  in  the  current  liearings,  on  the  other  hand,  we  would 
like  to  have  availnble  for  our  consideration  every  fact  and  document  which  can 
be  included  in  our  record  without  doing  violence  to  essential  security  con- 
siderations. 

"We  will  appreciate  a  reply  as  soon  as  possible." 

Next  are  the  words,  still  Senator  Mundt : 

I  talked  about  the  enclosures. 

I  have  here  a  reply  from  the  Attorney  General : 

May  13,  1954. 
Hon.  Karl  E.  Mitndt, 

United  States  Senate,  Washinfiton,  D.  C: 

In  reply  to  your  letter  of  May  10,  1954,  for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  my  letter 
of  May  6,  it  is  my  opinion  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  public  interest  to  release  the 
214 -page  document  which  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  letter  or  to  release  any  part 
thereof. 

As  I  pointed  out.  the  document  is  not  authentic  in  that  no  such  letter  was 
written  by  Mr.  J.  Edgar  Hoover.  The  portions  of  this  document  which  were 
taken  verbatim  from  the  15-page  interdepartmental  FBI  memorandum  dated 
January  26,  1951,  by  an  unidentified  person  are  classified  "confidential"  by  law; 
this  means  they  must  not  be  disclosed  "in  the  best  interests  of  the  national 
security." 

If  the  "confidential"  classification  of  the  FBI  reports  and  memoranda  is  not 
respected,  serious  and  irreparable  harm  will  be  done  to  the  FBI.  This  prin- 
ciple applies  with  equal  force  to  the  release  of  portions  of  the  FBI  memo- 
randum which  are  contained  in  the  214-page  document  as  well  as  to  the  memo- 
randum as  a  whole. 

The  Department  has  under  consideration  at  the  present  time  possible  viola- 
tions of  criminal  law  as  a  result  of  the  referral  of  the  transcript  of  the  hearings 
to  the  Department  by  your  subconunittee.  The  2i4-page  document  is  involved, 
and  its  declassification  at  this  time  might  affect  adversely  or  even  defeat  the 
proper  prosecution  of  offenses  involved  in  its  preparation  and  dis.semination. 
This  consideration  confirms  my  original  opinion  that  it  would  not  be  in  the 
public  interest  to  declassify  the  document  or  any  part  of  it  at  the  present  time. 
Sincerely, 

Herbert  Brownell,  Jr., 

Attorney  General. 


SHEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  117 

Mr.  Mundt  again  in  his  own  words : 

I  ask  that  my  letter  in  full,  and  the  Attorney  General's  letter  in  full,  be  en- 
tered at  this  point  in  the  record,  and  properly  identified. 

And  in  parentheses : 

The  letter  from  the  Attorney  General  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  19"  and  re- 
ceived in  evidence. 

End  of  parentheses. 

Again  reverting  to  the  stenographic  transcript,  this  time  volume  No. 
34,  pages  6722  and  6723 : 

Senator  Jackson.  All  right,  we  won't  go  into  any  further  detail  about  that. 
When  did  you  first  see  the  2Vt-page  FBI  document? 

Mr.  Cakr.  I  believe — I  believe  that  I  first  saw  the  two  and  a— what  is  it,  21^- 
page  document? — in  this  courtroom,  or  just  before  that,  just  the  day  that  Mr. 
McCarthy  lianded  it  up  here,  or  attempted  to  have  the  Chair  read  it. 

Senator  .Jackson.  Tou  had  never  seen  it  before? 

Mr.  Carr.  I  had  never  seen  it.    I  knew  about  it,  however. 

Senator  Jackson.  So  it  was  never  in  the  files? 

Mr.  Carr.  It  was  never  in  the  files  downstairs ;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Jackson.  How  could  you  conduct  this  investigation?  You  are  the 
staff  director,  and  if  yoii  hadn't  seen  it  until  the  day  you  came  in,  how  could 
you  have  conducted  this  investigation  without  having  seen  that  document? 

Mr.  Carr.  I  didn't  have  to  see  the  document,  sir.    I  know  what  was  in  it. 

Further  in  the  stenographic  testimony  of  the  same  hearing  for  June 
17,  vohime  36,  at  pages  7270  and  7271 : 

Mr.  Welch.  Where  do  you  keep  the  documents  like  the  2%-page  document  that 
we  had  here? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Welch,  I  was  of  the  opinion  that  was  down  in  the 
committee  files.  However,  I  heard  'Slv.  Carr  testify  to  the  effect  that  it  was  not : 
that  it  was  in  my  office.  I  will  take  Mr.  Carr's  testimony  on  that,  because  I 
am  sure  he  is  right  in  that. 

I\Ir.  Welch.  That  you  would  consider  an  important  document;  would  you  not? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Important,  but  not  important  beyond  many  documents 
•we  get. 

Mr.  Welch.  You  wouldn't  allow  it  to  lie  around  carelessly,  would  you,  Senator? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  did  not  lie  around  carelessly. 

]Mr.  Welch.  I  want  to  ask  about  that.     Have  you  a  safe  in  your  office? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  have. 

Mr.  Welch.  Was  that  document  kept  in  that  safe? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Apparently  it  was,  Mr.  Welch.  May  I  say,  I  wasn't  aware 
■of  that  until  I  heard  Mr.  Carr  testify  to  that,  and  I  checised  with  Mrs.  DriscoU 
and  she  tells  me  that  document  was  in  my  safe  rather  than  in  the  committee 
files. 

Mr.  Welch.  In  your  safe,  sir? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Welch.  May  I  ask  who  has  access  to  your  safe;  others  than  you,  or  not? 

Senator  McCarthy.  My  administrative  assistant  has  access.  Mrs.  Driscoll 
has.     I,  of  course,  have.     I  don't  think  anyone  else  has  the  combination. 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  conchides  the  factual  matter  in  connection  with 
the  subject  matter  to  which  we  have  been  directing  our  attention. 

My  brief,  of  course,  contains  some  memorandums  of  law,  but  I  have 
already  made  a  request  to  you  that  this  material  might  be  presented  by 
the  staff  in  carefully  prepared  and  revised  documentary  form,  rather 
than  as  it  is  in  our  briefs,  which  we  will  do,  giving  a  copy  of  that 
paper  to  Mr.  Williams.  And  we  hope  that  it  may  be  made  part  of  the 
record  without  the  necessity  of  needing  it  here. 

Mr.  Williams.  May  we  have  that  today,  Mr.  Chadwick? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  do  not  think  I  can  supply  it  today. 

Mr.  Williams.  All  right. 


118  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman,  I  understand,  Mr.  Cliadwick,  it  will  probably  be 
next  Tuesday  before  you  can  give  that  material, 

Mr,  Chadwick.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  I  assume  that  you  will  want  some  additional 
time  in  which  to  prepare  such  items  with  respect  to  the  law  as  you  have 
already  indicated  you  want  for  the  record  ? 

Mr,  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  recognizes  the  fact  that  it  is  a  long 
and  laborious  job  to  prepare  these  briefs,  and  to  carefully  check  the 
authorities  and  the  precedents  and  for  that  reason  I  think  that  any 
reasonable  time  should  be  granted  either  counsel  for  the  committee 
or  counsel  for  Mr.  McCarthy  in  which  to  do  that  job. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Such  briefs  of  the  law  will  contain  all  reference 
to  all  Federal  directives  that  we  identify  as  having  application.  We 
might  read  them  here,  and  we  may  read  them  when  we  file  our  report, 
if  we  deem  it  fit,  but  I  suggest  that  we  better  not  read  it  now  until 
we  have  had  a  chance  to  review  that  situation,  Mr.  Chairman, 

Mr.  Williams.  If  we  could  have  even  a  rough  draft  of  that  prior 
to  Tuesday,  I  think  that  we  might  be  able  to  file  our  brief  by  Tuesday 
or  Wednesday  in  reply  thereto. 

I  assume  that  you  have  reference  to  those  legal  matters  that  Senator 
Case  called  to  our  attention  this  morning  ? 

Mr,  Chadwick,  Yes,  sir ;  matters  that  we  have  heretofore  ref eiTed 
to  at  the  close  of  the  reading  of  the  brief  on  various  points.  And 
that  is  a  reasonable  request.  We  can  give  it  to  you  in  the  rough  with- 
out the  extension  of  material,  because  we  will  give  you  these  citations 
in  support  thereof. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Carlson.  May  I  ask  if  the  request  that  Senator  Case  made 
this  morning  contained  a  request  for  Executive  Order  No.  10450, 
which  deals  with  the  security  requirements  of  Government  employ- 
ment and,  also,  the  Presidential  directive  of  March  13,  1948,  which 
deals  w^ith  the  confidential  status  of  employees.  It  seems  to  me  that 
should  be  a  part  of  these  hearings,  if  it  is  not  already. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Yes,  sir;  we  quite  agree.  It  will  be  made  a  part 
of  that. 

The  Chairman.  I  take  it  that  counsel  is  going  to  search  for  all  of 
the  precedents,  all  of  the  sections  of  the  code,  all  of  the  rules  of  the 
Senate  or  any  interpretations  thereof  that  have  anything  to  do  with 
this  matter. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  We  will  do  our  very  best,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  That  includes  the  Presidential  directives,  and  any- 
thing of  a  legal  nature  that  may  throw  some  light  on  these  contro- 
versies, that  is,  on  these  issues  raised  in  this  hearing? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  That  will  be  our  purpose,  and  it  is  our  under- 
standing of  our  instructions. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  further  that  you  have  to  offer 
in  a  factual  way  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  rather  early  in  the  day.  The  committee 
has  been  looking  for  a  time  when  it  could  hold  a  rather  extended  execu- 
tive session.  'There  are  matters  of  law  to  be  cleared  up  and  matters 
of  investigation  yet  to  be  finished  and  to  receive  reports  on  some 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  119 

tha,t  are  underway,  so  that  the  committee  appreciates  getting  the 
rest  of  the  afternoon  to  work  out  such  matters,  in  which  to  hold  such 
a  meeting. 

As  I  said  yesterday,  some  members  of  the  committee  at  least  will 
attend  the  funeral  tomorrow  in  South  Carolina,  and  that  will  make 
it  impossible  for  us  to  go  ahead  with  the  hearing. 

The  hearings  will  resume  next  Tuesday  morning  at  10  o'clock,  and 
in  this  same  room. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  want  us  at  this  meeting  ? 

The  Chairman.  We  have  some  internal  work  with  respect  to  the 
committee's  activities.  If  you  have  anything  to  suggest,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, either  you  or  Senator  McCarthy,  that  will  be  helpful  in  getting 
all  of  the  facts  in  the  record — in  getting  all  of  the  law  pertinent  to  this 
matter  in  the  record — we  would  be  very  glad  to  meet  with  you  for  that 
purpose. 

We  do  not  have  any  other  objective  in  mind,  however. 

Mr.  WiLLLVMS.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  now  stand  in  recess  until  next 
Tuesday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  3 :  10  p.  m.,  the  committee  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  10  a.  m.,  Tuesday,  September  7, 1954.) 


HEAEINGS  ON  SENATE  EESOLUTION  301 


TUESDAY,   SEPTEMBER   7,    1954 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges 
Pursuant  to  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

Washrngtan^  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10: 14  a.  m.,  in  the 
caucns  room,  318  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Arthur  V.  Watkins 
(chairman)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (chairman),  Johnson  (vice  chairman), 
Carlson,  Case,  Stennis,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  E.  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel 
to  the  committee ;  Guy  G.  de  Furia,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee :  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  mem- 
ber; Frank  Ginsberg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire.  members  of  Senator  Wat- 
kins' staff  on  loan  to  the  committee :  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams, 
counsel  to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A.  Neill  and 
Brent  Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume  session. 

Confirming  a  committee  purpose,  which  I  mentioned  at  a  pre\dous 
hearing,  judicial  or  legislative  notice  will  be  taken  by  this  committee 
of  the  report  of  the  Henning-Hayden-Hendrickson  Subcommittee  on 
Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  Adminis- 
tration relating  to  the  investigation  directed  against  Senators  Joseph 
R.  McCarthy  and  William  Benton,  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution 
187  and  Senate  Resolution  304,  in  the  82d  Congress;  for  the  limited 
purpose  of  showing  the  nature  (but  not  to  establish  the  truth  or 
falsity)  of  the  charges  before  that  subcommittee,  as  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  jurisdiction  of  that  subcommittee. 

That  report  will  be  made  a  part  of  this  record,  and  will  appear  as 
appendix  No.  III. 

Tliis  committee  will  also  take  legislative  notice  of  the  letter  from 
the  President  to  the  Secretary  of  defense,  dated  May  17,  1954,  and  of 
the  memorandum  of  law  from  the  Attorney  General  to  the  President, 
accompanying  the  same.  The  counsel  will  "offer  said  letter  and  memo- 
randum in  evidence  by  copies  thereof,  and  will  read  the  letter  into 
the  record.  The  memorandum  will  be  marked  as  an  exhibit  and 
included  as  part  of  the  record  without  reading. 

You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Chadwick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  offer  in  evidence  a  letter  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  the  Secretary  of  Defense,  dated 
May  17,  1*954,  which  I  will  read  for  the  purposes  and  into  the  record 
as  you  direct. 

121 


122  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  has  already  directed  that  you  read  it 
into  the  record.  I  have  already  taken  judicial  notice  of  that  docu- 
ment.   You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Chadwick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  The  letter  reads  as  follows : 

Dear  Mr.  Seceetary  :  It  has  long  been  recognized  that  to  assist  the  Con- 
gress in  achieving  its  legislative  purposes  every  executive  department  or  agency 
must,  upon  the  request  of  a  congressional  committee,  expeditiously  furnish 
Information  relating  to  any  matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  conniiittee, 
with  certain  historical  exceptions — some  of  which  are  pointed  out  in  the  at- 
tached memorandum  from  the  Attorney  General.  This  administration  has  been 
and  will  continue  to  be  diligent  in  following  this  principle.  However,  it  is  essen- 
tial to  the  successful  working  of  our  system  that  the  persons  entrusted  with 
power  in  any  1  of  the  3  great  branches  of  Government  shall  not  encroacli  upon  the 
authority  confided  to  the  others.  The  ultimate  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of 
the  executive  branch  rests  with  the  President. 

Within  this  constitutional  framework  each  branch  should  cooperate  fully 
with  each  other  for  the  common  good.  However,  throughout  our  history  the 
President  has  withheld  information  whenever  he  found  that  what  was  sought 
was  confidential  or  its  disclosure  would  be  incompatible  with  the  public  interest 
or  jeopardize  the  safety  of  the  Nation. 

Because  it  is  essential  to  efficient  and  effective  administration  that  employees 
of  the  executive  branch  to  be  in  a  position  to  be  completely  candid  in  advising 
with  each  other  on  official  matters,  and  because  it  is  not  in  the  public  interest 
that  any  of  their  conversations  or  communications,  or  any  documents  or  repro- 
ductions, concerning  such  advice  be  disclosed,  you  will  instruct  employees  of 
your  Department  that  in  all  of  their  appearances  before  the  subcommittee  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Government  Operations  regarding  the  inquiry  now  before 
if  they  are  not  to  testify  to  any  such  conversations  or  communications  or  to  pro- 
duce any  such  documents  or  reproductions.  This  principle  must  be  maintained 
regardless  of  who  would  be  benefited  by  such  disclosures. 

i  direct  this  action  so  as  to  maintain  the  proper  separation  of  powers  between 
the  executive  and  legislative  branches  of  the  Government  in  accordance  with 
my  responsibilities  and  duties  under  the  Constitution.  This  separation  is  vital 
to  preclude  the  exercise  of  arbitrary  power  by  any  branch  of  the  Government. 

By  this  action  I  am  not  in  any  way  restricting  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses 
as  to  what  occurred  regarding  any  matters  where  the  communication  was  directly 
between  any  of  the  principals  in  the  controversy  within  the  executive  branch 
on  the  one  hand  and  a  member  of  the  subcommittee  or  its  staff  on  the  other. 
Sincerely, 

(Signed)     Dwight  D.  Eisenhower. 

This  letter  is  addressed  to  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  Defense, 
Washinjrton,  D.  C.    This  letter  was  dated  May  17, 1954. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  understood  that  order  as  read  by  Mr.  Chadwick 
pertains  solely  and  exclusively  to  the  committee  of  which  Senator 
Mundt  was  chairman,  which  functioned  earlier  this  year. 

Now,  I  was  wonderino;  what  relative  purpose  this  introduction  had 
here.    I  thought  Mr.  Chadwick  might  help  us  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Chadwick. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  As  I  catch  the  question,  it  is  the  limitation  on  a 
certain  matter  to  prove  a  certain  case.  Mr.  Williams,  I  think  the  docu- 
ment speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Williams.  It  does  to  me,  Mr.  Chadwick.  It  speaks  very  clearly 
that  it  has  applicability  only  to  the  Mundt  committee.  I  wondered 
what  its  purpose  was  in  this  hearing. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  The  purpose  is  to  supplement  the  other  testimony 
which  has  been  read  as  evidence  heretofore  or  which  may  be  adduced 
hereafter  with  reference  to  the  utilization,  use,  transmission,  disclosure 
of  classified  documents  or  other  communications,  interdepartmental 
connnunications  which  are  confidential  under  this  directive. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  123 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Will  counsel  state  whether  or  not  this  letter  from  the 
President  went  to  the  so-called  Mundt  committee  before  or  after,  and 
was  it  written  or  issued  by  the  President  before  or  after  the  alleged 
invitation  by  Senator  McCarthy  to  Government  employees  with  re- 
spect to  the  furnishing  of  certain  information  ? 

Mr.  Chadw^ck.  My  best  recollection,  sir,  is  that  it  followed  that, 
that  it  was  immediately  contemporaneous  with  it.  Whether  it  was 
immediately  before  or  immediately  after,  I  cannot  say  without  refer- 
ence to  the  record. 

Senator  Case.  The  dates,  I  assume,  do  appear  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  They  do,  sir.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  stenog- 
i-apher,  and  ask  him  to  mark  as  a  committee  exhibit  a  memorandum 
10  pages  in  length  to  the  President  from  the  Attorney  General  which 
was  attached  to  and  in  support  of  the  Presidential  order  which  I  have 
just  read  into  the  record.  I  ask  him  to  advise  me  what  number  to  give 
to  the  document.  We  understand  that  it  is  exhibit  No.  3.  It  is  offered 
in  evidence  as  part  of  the  record  in  this  case. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  has  already  ruled  the  exhibit  will  be 
marked  as  a  memorandum  and  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  record  at 

this  point. 

Memorandum 
For :  The  President. 
From  :  The  Attorney  General. 

One  of  the  chief  merits  of  the  American  system  of  written  constitutional  law 
is  tliat  all  the  powers  entrusted  to  the  Government  are  divided  into  three  sreat 
departments,  the  executive,  the  le?;islative,  and  the  judicial.  It  is  essential  to 
the  successful  working  of  this  system  that  the  persons  entrusted  with  power 
in  any  one  of  these  branches  shall  not  be  permitted  to  encroach  upon  the  powers 
confided  to  the  others,  but  that  each  shall  be  limited  to  the  exercise  of  tlie  powers 
•appropriate  to  its  own  department  and  no  other.  The  doctrine  of  separation  of 
powers  was  adopted  to  preclude  the  exercise  of  arbitrary  power  and  to  save  the 
people  from  autocracy. 

This  fundamental  principle  was  fully  recognized  by  our  first  President,  George 
Washington,  as  early  as  1796  when  he  said:  "*  *  *  it  is  essential  to  the  due 
administration  of  the  Government  that  the  boundaries  fixed  by  the  Constitution 
between  tlie  different  departments  should  be  preserved  *  *  *."  In  his  Fare- 
well Address,  President  Washington  again  cautioned  strongly  against  the  danger 
of  encroachment  by  one  department  into  the  domain  of  another  as  leading  to 
despotism.  This  principle  has  received  steadfast  adherence  throughout  the 
many  years  of  our  history  and  growth.  More  than  ever,  it  is  our  duty  today  to 
heed  these  words  if  our  country  is  to  retain  its  place  as  a  leader  among  the 
free  nations  of  the  world. 

For  over  150  years — almost  from  the  time  tliat  the  American  form  of  govern- 
ment was  created  by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution — our  Presidents  have 
established,  by  precedent,  that  they  and  members  of  their  Cabinet  and  other 
heads  of  executive  departments  have  an  undoubted  privilege  and  discretion  to 
keep  confidential,  in  the  pulilic  interest,  papers  and  information  which  require 
secrecy.  American  history  abounds  in  countless  ilUistrations  of  the  refusal,  on 
occasion,  by  the  President  and  heads  of  d  partments  to  furnish  papers  to  Con- 
gress, or  its  committees,  for  reasons  of  pulDlic  policy.  The  messages  of  our  past 
Presidents  reveal  that  almost  every  one  of  them  found  it  necessary  to  inform 
Congress  of  his  constitutional  duty  to  execute  the  office  of  President,  and,  in 
furtherance  of  that  duty,  to  withhold  informatit)n  and  papers  for  the  public  good. 

Nor  are  the  instances  lacking  where  the  aid  of  a  court  was  sought  in  vain  to 
obtain  information  or  papers  from  a  President  and  the  heads  of  departments. 
Courts  have  uniformly  held  that  the  President  and  the  heads  of  departments 
have  an  uncontrolled  discretion  to  withhold  the  information  and  papers  in  the 
public  interest ;  they  will  not  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  that  discretion,  and 

52461—54 9 


124  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

that  Congress  has  not  the  power,  as  one  of  the  three  great  branches  of  the 
Government,  to  subject  the  executive  branch  to  its  will  any  more  than  the  execu- 
tive branch  may  impose  its  unrestrained  will  upon  the  Congress. 

PRESIDENT  Washington's  administration 

In  March  1792,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  the  following  resolution : 

''Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
failure  of  the  late  expedition  under  Major  General  St.  Clair ;  and  that  the  said 
committee  be  empowered  to  call  for  such  persons,  papers,  and  records,  as  may  be 
necessary  to  assist  their  inquiries."     (3  Annals  of  Congress,  p.  493.) 

This  was  the  first  time  that  a  committee  of  Congress  was  appointed  to  look 
into  a  matter  which  involved  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government.  The 
expedition  of  General  St.  Clair  was  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 
The  expenditures  connected  therewith  came  under  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
The  House  based  its  right  to  investigate  on  its  control  of  the  expenditures  of 
public  moneys.  It  appears  that  the  Secretaries  of  War  and  the  Treasury  ap- 
peared before  the  committee.  However  when  the  committee  was  bold  enough  f  o 
ask  the  President  for  the  papers  pertaining  to  the  General  St.  Clair  campaign, 
President  Washington  called  a  meeting  of  his  Cabinet  (Binkley,  President  and 
Congress  pp.  40-41 ) . 

Thomas  Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of  State,  reports  what  took  place  at  that 
meeting.  Besides  Jefferson,  Alexander  Hamilton,  Henry  Knox,  Secretary  of 
War,  and  Edmond  Randolph,  the  Attorney  General,  were  present.  The  com- 
mittee had  first  written  to  Knox  for  the  original  letters,  instructions,  etc.,  to 
General  St.  Clair.  President  Washington  stated  that  he  had  called  his  Cabinet 
members  together,  because  it  was  the  first  example  of  a  demand  on  the  Executive 
for  papers,  and  he  wished  that  so  far  as  it  should  become  a  precedent,  it  should 
be  rightly  conducted.  The  President  readily  admitted  that  he  did  not  doubt  the 
propriety  of  what  the  House  was  doing,  but  he  could  conceive  that  there  might 
be  papers  of  so  secret  a  nature,  that  they  ought  not  to  be  given  up.  Washington 
and  his  Cabinet  came  to  the  unanimous  conclusion  : 

"First,  that  the  House  was  an  inquest,  and  therefore  might  institute  inquiries. 
Second,  that  it  might  call  for  papers  generally.  Third,  that  the  Executive  ought 
to  communicate  such  papers  as  the  public  good  would  permit,  and  ought  to  refuse 
those,  the  disclosure  of  which  would  injure  the  public :  consequently  were  to 
exercise  a  discretion.  Fourth,  that  neither  the  committee  nor  House  had  a  right 
to  call  on  the  Head  of  a  Department,  who  and  whose  papers  were  under  the 
President  alone ;  but  that  the  committee  should  instruct  their  chairman  to  move 
the  House  to  address  the  President." 

The  precedent  thus  set  by  our  first  President  and  his  Cabinet  was  followed  in 
1796,  when  President  Washington  was  presented  with  a  resolution  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  which  requested  him  to  lay  before  the  House  a  copy  of  the 
instructions  to  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  who  negotiated  the  treaty  with 
the  King  of  Great  Britain,  together  with  the  correspondence  and  documents  rela- 
tive to  that  treaty.  Apparently  it  was  necessary  to  implement  the  treaty  with 
an  appropriation  which  the  House  was  called  upon  to  vote.  The  House  insisted  on 
its  right  to  the  papers  requested,  as  a  condition  to  appropriating  the  required 
funds.     (President  and  Congress,  Wilfred  E.  Binkley  (1947),  p.  44). 

President  Washington's  classic  reply  was,  in  part,  as  follows  : 

"I  trust  that  no  part  of  my  conduct  has  ever  indicated  a  disposition  to  withhold 
any  information  which  the  Constitution  has  enjoined  upon  the  President  as  a 
duty  to  give,  or  which  could  be  required  of  him  by  either  House  of  Congress  as  a 
right ;  and  with  truth  I  affirm  that  it  has  been,  as  it  will  continue  to  be  while  I 
have  the  honor  to  preside  in  the  Government,  my  constant  endeavor  to  harmonize 
with  the  other  branches  thereof  so  far  as  the  trust  delegated  to  me  by  the  people 
of  the  United  States  and  my  sense  of  the  obligation  it  imposes  to  'preserve,  pro- 
tect, and  defend  the  Constitution'  will  permit"  (Richardson's  Messages  and 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  1,  p.  194). 

Washington  then  went  on  to  discuss  the  secrecy  required  in  negotiations  with 
foreign  governments,  and  cited  that  as  a  reason  for  vesting  the  power  of  making 
treaties  in  the  President,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  He  felt 
that  to  admit  the  House  of  Representatives  into  the  treatymaking  power,  by 
reason  of  its  constitutional  duty  to  appropriate  moneys  to  carry  out  a  treaty, 
would  be  to  establish  a  dangerous  precedent.  He  closed  his  message  to  the 
House  as  follows : 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  125 

"As,  therefore,  it  is  perfectly  clear  to  my  understanding  that  the  assent  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  treaty  ;  *  *  *  and 
as  it  is  essential  to  the  due  administration  of  the  Government  that  the  boundaries 
fixed  by  the  Constitution  between  the  different  departments  should  be  preserved, 
a  just  regard  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the  duty  of  my  office,  under  all  the 
circumstances  of  this  case,  forbids  a  compliance  with  your  request"  (Richard- 
son's Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  1,  p.  196 ) . 

PRESIDENT  JEFFERSON'S  ADMINISTRATION 

In  January  1807,  Representative  Randolph  introduced  a  resolution,  as  follows : 
"Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  re- 
quested to  lay  before  this  House  any  information  in  possession  of  the  Executive, 
except  such  as  he  may  deem  the  public  welfare  to  require  not  to  be  disclosed, 
touching  any  illegal  combination  of  private  individuals  against  the  peace  and 
safety  of  the  Union,  or  any  military  expedition  planned  by  such  individuals 
against  the  territories  of  any  power  in  amity  with  the  United  States ;  together 
with  the  measures  which  the  Executive  has  pursued  and  proposes  to  take  for 
suppressing  or  defeating  the  same"  (16  Annals  of  Congress  (1806-1807),  p.  336). 
The  resolution  was  overwhelmingly  passed.  The  Burr  conspiracy  was  then 
stirring  the  country.  Jefferson  had  made  it  the  object  of  a  special  message  to 
Congress  wherein  he  referred  to  a  military  expedition  headed  by  Burr.  Jeffer- 
son's reply  to  the  resolution  was  a  message  to  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Jefferson  brought  the  Congress  up  to  date  on  the  news  which  he 
had  been  receiving  concerning  the  illegal  combination  of  private  individuals 
against  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  Union.  He  pointed  out  that  he  had  recently 
received  a  mass  of  data,  most  of  which  had  been  obtained  without  the  sanction 
of  an  oath  so  as  to  constitute  formal  and  legal  evidence.  "It  is  chiefly  in  the 
form  of  letters,  often  containing  such  a  mixture  of  rumors,  conjectures,  and  sus- 
picions as  renders  it  difficult  to  sift  out  the  real  facts  and  unadvisable  to  hazard 
more  than  general  outlines,  strengthened  by  concurrent  information  or  the  par- 
ticular credibility  of  the  relator.  In  this  state  of  the  evidence,  delivered  some- 
times too  under  the  restriction  of  private  confidence,  neither  safety  nor  justice 
will  permit  the  exposing  names,  except  that  of  the  principal  actor,  whose  guilt 
is  placed  beyon  question"  (Richardson's  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents, 
vol.  1,  p.  412,  dated  January  22,  1807). 

SIMILAR  ACTIONS  BY  PRESIDENTS  JACKSON,  TYLER,  BUCHANAN,   AND  GRANT 

On  February  10,  1835,  President  Jackson  sent  a  message  to  the  Senate  wherein 
he  declined  to  comply  with  the  Senate's  resolution  requesting  him  to  communi- 
cate copies  of  charges  which  had  been  made  to  the  President  against  the  official 
conduct  of  Gideon  Fitz,  late  surveyor-general,  which  caused  his  removal  from 
office.  The  resolution  stated  that  the  information  requested  was  necessary  both 
in  the  action  which  it  proposed  to  take  on  the  nomination  of  a  successor  to  Fitz, 
and  in  connection  with  the  investigation  which  was  then  in  progress  by  the 
Senate  respecting  the  frauds  in  the  sales  of  public  lands. 

The  President  declined  to  furnish  the  information.  He  stated  that  in  his 
judgment  the  information  related  to  subjects  exclusively  belonging  to  the  execu- 
tive department.  The  request  therefore  encroached  on  the  constitutional  powers 
of  the  Executive. 

The  President's  message  referred  to  many  previous  similar  requests,  which 
he  deemed  imconstitutional  demands  by  the  Senate : 

"Their  continued  repetition  imposes  on  me,  as  the  representative  and  trustee 
of  the  American  people,  the  painful  but  imperious  duty  of  resisting  to  the  utmost 
any  further  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  the  Executive"  (ibid.,  p.  133) . 

The  President  next  took  up  the  fact  that  the  Senate  resolution  had  been 
passed  in  executive  session,  from  which  he  was  bound  to  presume  that  if  the 
information  requested  by  the  reoslution  were  communicated,  it  would  be  applied 
in  secret  session  to  the  investigation  of  frauds  in  the  sales  of  public  lands.  The 
President  said  that,  if  he  were  to  furnish  the  information,  the  citizen  whose 
conduct  the  Senate  sought  to  impeach  would  lose  one, of  his  basic  rights,  namely, 
that  of  a  public  investigation  in  the  presence  of  his  accusers  and  of  the  witnesses 
against  him.  In  addition,  compliance  with  the  resolution  would  subject  the 
motives  of  the  President,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Fitz,  to  the  review  of  the  Senate 
when  not  sitting  as  judges  on  an  impeachment ;  and  even  if  such  a  consequence 
did  not  follow  in  the  present  case,  the  President  feared  that  compliance  by  the 


126  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Executive  might  thereafter  be  quoted  as  a  precedent  for  similar  and  repeated 
applications. 

"Such  a  result,  if  acquiesced  in,  would  ultimately  subject  the  independent 
constitutional  action  of  the  Executive  in  a  matter  of  great  national  concern- 
ment to  the  domination  and  control  of  the  Senate;  *  *  * 

"I  therefore  decline  a  compliance  with  so  much  of  the  resolution  of  the  Sen- 
ate as  requests  'copies  of  the  charges,  if  any,'  in  relation  to  Mr.  Fitz,  and  in 
doing  so  must  be  distinctly  understood  as  neither  affirming  nor  denying  that 
any  such  cliarges  were  made;  *  *  *"  (ibid.  p.  134). 

One  of  tlie  liest  reasoned  precedents  of  a  President's  refusal  to  permit  the 
head  of  a  department  to  disclose  confidential  information  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives is  President  Tyler's  refusal  to  communicate  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives the  reports  relative  to  the  affairs  of  tbe  Cherokee  Indians  and  to 
tbe  frauds  which  were  alleged  to  have  been  practiced  upon  them.  A  resolution 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  had  called  upon  the  Secretary  of  War  to  com- 
municate to  tlie  House  the  reports  made  to  the  Department  of  War  by  Lieutenant 
Colonel  Hitchcock  relative  to  the  affairs  of  the  Cherokee  Indians  together  with 
all  information  communicated  by  him  concerning  the  frauds  he  was  charged 
to  investigate ;  also  all  facts  in  the  possession  of  the  Executive  relating  to  tiie 
sul>.ipct.  The  Secretary  of  War  consulted  with  the  President  and  under  the  hit- 
ter's direction  informed  the  House  that  negotiations  were  then  pending  with 
the  Indians  for  settlement  of  their  claims;  in  the  opinion  of  the  President  and 
the  Department,  therefore,  publication  of  the  report  at  that  time  would  be 
inconsistent  wtih  the  public  interest.  The  Secretary  of  War  further  stated 
in  his  answer  to  the  i-esolution  that  the  report  sought  by  the  House,  dealing  with 
alleged  frauds  which  Lieutenant  Colonel  Hitchcock  was  charged  to  investigate, 
contained  information  which  was  obtained  by  Colonel  Hitchcock  by  ex  parte 
inquiries  of  persons  whose  statements  were  without  the  sanction  of  an  oath, 
and  wliich  tlie  persons  implicated  had  had  no  opportunity  to  contradict  or  ex- 
plain. The  Secretary  of  War  expressed  the  opinion  that  to  promulgate  th',>se 
statements  at  that  time  would  be  grossly  unjust  to  those  persons,  and  would 
defeat  the  object  of  the  inquiry.  He  also  remarked  that  the  Department  had 
not  been  given  at  that  time  sufficient  ouportunity  to  pursue  the  investigation,  to 
call  the  parties  affected  for  explanations,  or  to  determine  on  the  measures 
proper  to  be  taken. 

The  answer  of  the  Secretary  of  War  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Indian  Affairs  of  the  House,  which  claimed  the  right  to  demand 
from  the  Executive  and  heads  of  departments  such  information  as  may  be  in 
their  possession  relating  to  sulxiects  of  the  deliberations  of  the  Hou^e. 

President  Tyler  in  a  message  dated  .January  31,  1843,  vigorously  asserted 
that  the  House  of  Representatives  could  not  exercise  a  right  to  call  upon  the 
Executive  for  information,  even  though  it  related  to  a  subject  of  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  House,  if,  by  so  doing,  it  attempted  to  interfere  with  the  discretion 
of  the  Executive. 

The  snme  course  of  action  was  taken  by  President  James  Buchanan  in  ISGO 
in  resisting  a  resolution  of  the  House  to  investigate  whether  the  President 
or  any  other  officer  of  the  Government  had,  by  money,  patronage  or  other  im- 
proper means  sought  to  influence  the  action  of  Congress  for  or  against  the 
passage  of  any  law  relating  to  the  rights  of  any  State  or  Territory  (see  Rich- 
ardscm,  "Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol.  5,  pp.  618-6103. 

In  the  administration  of  President  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  the  House  requested  the 
President  to  inform  it  whether  any  executive  offices,  acts,  or  duties,  and  if  any, 
what,  have  been  performed  at  a  distance  from  the  seat  of  government  established 
by  law.  It  appears  that  the  purpose  of  this  inquiry  was  to  embarrass  the  Presi- 
dent bv  reason  of  h's  having  spent  some  of  the  hot  months  at  Long  Branch. 
President  Grant  repied  that  he  failed  to  find  in  the  Constitution  the  authority 
given  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  t^^at  the  inquiry  had  nothing  to  do 
with  legislation  (Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  VII, 
pp.  362-363). 

PBESIDENT   CLEVELAND'S    ADMINISTRATION 

In  1886,  during  President  Cleveland's  administration,  there  was  an  extended 
discussion  in  the  Senate  with  reference  to  its  relations  to  the  Executive  caused 
by  the  refusal  of  the  Attorney  General  to  transmit  to  the  Senate  certain  docu- 
ments concerning  the  administration  of  the  office  of  the  district  attorney  for  the 
southern  district  of  south  Alabama,  and  suspension  of  George  W.  Durkin,  the 
late  incumbent.     The  majority  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  con- 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  127 

eluded  it  was  entitled  to  know  all  that  ofBcially  exists  or  takes  place  in  any  of 
the  departments  of  Government  and  that  neither  the  President  nor  the  head  of  a 
department  could  withhold  official  facts  and  information  as  distinguished  from 
private  and  unofficial  papers. 

In  his  reply  President  Cleveland  disclaimed  any  intention  to  withhold  official 
papers,  but  he  denied  that  papers  and  documents  inherently  private  or  confiden- 
tial, addressed  to  the  President  or  a  head  of  a  department,  having  reference  to  an 
act  entirely  executive  such  as  the  suspension  of  an  official,  were  changed  in  their 
nature  and  became  official  when  placed  for  convenience  in  the  custody  of  a 
public  department  (Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  8, 
pp.  378-379,  381 ) . 

Challenging  the  attitude  that  because  the  executive  departments  were  created 
by  Congress  the  latter  had  any  supervisory  power  over  them,  President  Cleveland 
declared  (Eberling,  Congi'essional  Investigation,  p.  258)  : 

"I  do  not  suppose  that  the  public  offices  of  the  United  States  are  regulated 
or  controlled  in  their  relations  to  either  House  of  Congress  by  the  fact  that  they 
were  created  by  laws  enacted  by  themselves.  It  must  be  that  these  instrumen- 
talities were  created  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  and  to  answer  the  general  pur- 
poses of  Government  under  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  that  they  are 
unencumbered  by  any  lien  in  favor  of  either  branch  of  Congress  growing  out  of 
their  construction,  and  unembarrassed  by  any  obligation  to  the  Senate  as  the 
price  of  their  creation." 

PRESinENT    THEODORE    ROOSEVELT'S    ADMINISTRATION 

In  1909.  during  the  administration  of  President  Theodore  Roosevelt,  the 
question  of  the  right  of  the  President  to  exercise  complete  direction  and  control 
over  heads  of  executive  departments  was  raised  again.  At  that  time  the  Senate 
passed  a  resolution  directing  the  Attorney  General  to  inform  the  Senate  whether 
certain  legal  proceedings  had  been  instituted  against  the  United  States  Steel 
Corp.,  and  if  not,  the  reasons  for  its  nonaction.  Request  was  also  made  for 
any  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  if  one  was  written.  President  Theodore 
Roosevelt  replied,  refusing  to  honor  this  request  upon  the  ground  that  "beads 
of  the  executive  departments  are  subject  to  the  Constitution,  and  to  the  laws 
passed  by  the  Congress  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  the  directions 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  but  to  no  other  direction  whatever" 
(Congressional  Record,  vol.  43,  pt.  1,  60th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  pp.  527-52S). 

When  the  Senate  was  unable  to  get  the  documents  from  the  Attorney  General, 
it  summoned  Herbert  K.  Smith,  the  head  of  the  Bureau  of  Corporations,  and 
requested  the  papers  and  documents  on  penalty  of  imprisonment  for  contempt. 
Mr.  Smith  reported  the  request  to  the  President,  who  directed  him  to  turn  over 
to  the  President  all  the  papers  in  the  case  "so  that  I  could  assist  the  Senate 
in  the  prosecution  of  its  investigation."  President  Roosevelt  then  informed 
Senator  Clark,  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  what  had  been  done,  that  he  had 
the  papers  and  the  only  way  the  Senate  could  get  them  was  through  his 
impeachment.  President  Roosevelt  also  explained  that  some  of  the  facts  were 
given  to  the  Government  under  the  seal  of  secrecy  and  cannot  be  divulged, 
"and  I  will  see  to  it  that  the  word  of  this  Government  to  the  individual  is 
kept  sacred"  (Corwin,  The  President — Office  and  Powers,  pp.  281,  428;  Abbott, 
"The  Letters  of  Archie  Butt,  Personal  Aide  to  President  Roosevelt,"  pp.  305-306). 

PRESIDENT   COOLIDGE's    ADMINISTRATION 

In  1924,  during  the  administration  of  President  Coolidge,  the  latter  objected 
to  the  action  of  a  special  investigating  committee  appointed  by  the  Senate  to 
investigate  the  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue.  Request  was  made  by  the  com- 
mittee for  a  list  of  the  companies  in  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was 
alleged  to  be  interested  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  their  tax  returns. 
Calling  this  exercise  of  power  an  unwarranted  intrusion.  President  Coolidge 
said : 

"Whatever  may  be  necessary  for  the  information  of  the  Senate  or  any  of  its 
committees  In  order  to  better  enable  them  to  perform  their  legislative  or  other 
constitutional  functions  ought  always  to  be  furnished  willingly  and  expedi- 
tiously by  any  department.  But  it  is  recognized  both  by  law  and  custom  that 
there  is  certain  confidential  information  which  it  would  be  detrimental  to  the 
public  service  to  reveal"  (68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  Record,  Apr.  11,  1924,  p.  6087). 


128  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

PRESIDENT  HOOVEE'S  ADMINISTKATION 

A  similar  question  arose  in  1930  during  tlie  administration  of  President 
Hoover.  Secretary  of  State  Stimson  refused  to  disclose  to  the  chairman  of  the 
Senate  Foreign  Relations  Committee  certain  confidential  telegrams  and  letters 
leading  up  to  the  London  Conference  and  the  London  Treaty.  The  committee 
asserted  its  right  to  have  full  and  free  access  to  all  records  touching  the  nego- 
tiations of  the  treaty,  basing  its  right  on  the  constitutional  prerogative  of  the 
Senate  in  the  treatymaking  process.  In  his  message  to  the  Senate,  President 
Hoover  pointed  out  that  there  were  a  great  many  informal  statements  and  re- 
ports which  were  given  to  the  Government  in  confidence.  The  Executive  was 
under  a  duty,  in  order  to  maintain  amicable  relations  with  other  nations,  not 
to  publicize  all  the  negotiations  and  statements  which  Aveut  into  the  making 
of  the  treaty.  He  further  declared  that  the  Executive  must  not  be  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  trust,  nor  violate  the  invariable  practice  of  nations.  "In  view  of  this, 
I  believe  that  to  further  comply  with  the  above  resolution  would  be  incompatible 
with  the  public  interest"   (S.  Doc.  No.  216,  71st  Cong.,  special  sess.,  p.  2). 

PKESIDENT   FRANKLIN    D.    ROOSEVELT'S    ADMINISTRATION 

The  position  was  followed  during  the  administration  of  President  Franklin 
D.  Roosevelt.  There  were  many  instances  in  which  the  President  and  his 
executive  heads  refused  to  make  available  certain  information  to  Congress  the 
disclosure  of  which  was  deemed  to  be  confidential  or  contrary  to  the  public  in- 
terest.    Merely  a  few  need  be  cited. 

1.  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  records  and  reports  were  refused  to  con- 
gressional committees,  in  the  public  interest  (40  Op.  Atty.  Gen.  No.  8,  Apr.  30, 
1941). 

2.  The  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  refused  to  give  testi- 
mony or  to  exhibit  a  copy  of  the  President's  directive  requiring  him,  in  the 
interests  of  national  security,  to  refrain  from  testifying  or  from  disclosing  the 
contents  of  the  Bureau's  reports  and  activities  (hearings,  vol.  2,  House,  78th 
Cong.,  Select  Committee  To  Investigate  the  Federal  Communications  Commis- 
sion   (1944),  p.  2337). 

3.  Communications  between  the  President  and  the  heads  of  departments  were 
held  to  be  confidential  and  privileged  and  not  subject  to  inquiry  by  a  committee 
of  one  of  the  Houses  of  Congress  (letter  dated  January  22,  1944,  signed  Francis 
Biddle,  Attorney  General,  to  select  committee,  etc.). 

4.  The  Director  of  the  Bureau  of  the  Budget  refused  to  testify  and  to  produce 
the  Bureau's  files,  pursuant  to  subpena  which  had  been  served  upon  him,  because 
the  President  had  instructed  him  not  to  make  public  the  records  of  the  Bureau 
due  to  their  confidential  nature.  Public  interest  was  again  invoked  to  prevent 
disclosure.  (Reliance  placed  on  Attorney  General's  opinion  in  40  Op.  Atty.  Gen. 
No.  8,  Apr.  30,  1941.) 

5.  The  Secretaries  of  ¥/ar  and  Navy  were  directed  not  to  deliver  documents 
which  the  committee  had  requested,  on  gTounds  of  public  interest.  The  Secre- 
taries, in  their  own  judgment,  refused  permission  to  Army  and  Navy  officers 
to  appear  and  testify  because  they  felt  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  public 
interests  (hearings.  Select  Committee  To  Investigate  the  Federal  Communi- 
cations Commission,  vol.  1,  pp.  46,  48-68). 

PRESIDENT  TRUMAN'S  ADMINISTRATION 

During  the  Truman  administration  also  the  President  adhered  to  the  tra- 
tional  Executive  view  that  the  President's  discretion  must  govern  the  surren- 
der of  Executive  files.  Some  of  the  major  incidents  during  the  administra- 
tion of  President  Truman  in  which  information,  records,  and  files  were  denied 
to  congressional  committees  were  as  follows : 

Bate  Type  of  document  refused 

Mar.  4,  1948 FBI  letter-report  on  Dr.   Condon,  Director  of 

National  Bureau  of  Standards,  refused  by 
Secretary  of  Commerce. 

Mar.  15,  1948 President  issued  directive  forbidding  all  ex:ec- 

utive  departments  and  agencies  to  furnish 
information  or  reports  concerning  loyalty 
of  their  employees  to  any  court  or  commit- 
tee of  Congress,  unless  President  approves. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  129 

March  1948 Dr.  John  R.  Steelman,  confidential  adviser  to 

the  President,  refused  to  appear  before  Com- 
mittee on  Education  and  Labor  of  the  House, 
following  the  service  of  2  subpenas  upon  him. 
President  directed  him  not  to  appear. 

Aug.  5,  1948 Attorney    General    wrote     Senator    Ferguson, 

chairman  of  Senate  Investigations  Subcom- 
mittee, that  he  would  not  furnish  letters, 
memoranda,  and  other  notices  which  the  Jus- 
tice Department  had  furnished  to  other  Gov- 
ernment agencies  concerning  W.  W.  Reming- 
ton. 

Feb.  22,  1950 S.  Res.  231  directing  Senate  subcommittee  to 

procure  State  Department  loyalty  files  was 
met  with  President  Truman's  refusal,  follow- 
ing vigorous  opposition  of  J.  Edgar  Hoover. 

Mar.  27,  1950 Attorney  General  and  Director  of  FBI  ap- 
peared before  Senate  subcommittee.  Mr. 
Hoover's  historic  statement  of  reasons  for  re- 
fusing to  furnish  raw  files  approved  by  At- 
torney  General. 

May  16,  1951 ..  General  Bradley  refused  to  divulge  conversa- 
tions between  President  and  his  advisers  to 
combine  Senate  Foreign  Relations  and  Armed 
Services  Committees. 

Jan.  31,  1952 President  Truman  directed  Secretary  of  State 

to  refuse  to  Senate  Internal  Security  Sub- 
committee the  reports  and  views  of  foreign 
service  officers. 

Apr.  22,  1952 Acting  Attorney   General  Perlman  laid   down 

procedure  for  complying  with  requests  for  in- 
spection of  Department  of  Justice  files  by 
Committee  on   the  Judiciary : 

Requests  on  open  cases  would  not  be  hon- 
ored. Status  report  will  be  furnished. 
As  to  closed  cases,  files  would  be  made 
available.  All  FBI  reports  and  confi- 
dential information  would  not  be  made 
available. 
As  to  personnel  files,  they  are  never  dis- 
closed. 

Apr.  3,  1952 President     Truman     instructed     Secretary    of 

State  to  withhold  from  Senate  Appropria- 
tions Subcommittee  files  on  loyalty  and  se- 
curity investigations  of  employees — policy  to 
apply  to  all  executive  agencies.  The  names 
of  individuals  determined  to  be  security  risks 
would  not  lie  divulged.  The  voting  record  of 
members  of  an  agency  loyalty  board  would 
not  be  divulged. 

Thus,  you  can  see  that  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  have  withheld  in- 
formation of  executive  departments  or  agencies  whenever  it  was  found  that 
the  information  sought  w^as  confidential  or  that  its  disclosure  would  be  incom- 
patible with  the  public  interest  or  jeopardize  the  safety  of  the  Nation.  The 
courts  too  have  held  that  the  question  whether  the  production  of  the  papers 
was  contrary  to  the  public  interest,  was  a  matter  for  the  Executive  to  determine. 

B.v  keeping  the  lines  which  separate  and  divide  the  three  great  branches  of 
our  Government  clearly  defined,  no  one  branch  has  been  able  to  encroach  upon 
the  powers  of  the  other. 

Upon  this  firm  principle  of  our  country's  strength,  liberty,  and  democratic 
form  of  government  will  continue  to  endure. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  don't  want  to  object  to  the  admission  of  this,  and 
I  think  I  can  avoid  any  objection  by  stipulation  which  I  am  sure 
Mr.  Chadwick  will  enter  into,  namely,  that  that  letter  of  May  17,  1954, 


130  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

from  the  President  to  the  Secretary  of  Defense  laid  down  a  rule  which 
had  applicability  only  to  the  Mnndt  committee  and  it  did  not  have  gen- 
eral applicability  to  the  Government  Operations  Committee,  of  which 
Senator  McCarthy  is  chairman.  It  related  solely  and  exclusively  to 
the  specific  hearing  which  was  being  conducted  under  the  chairman- 
ship of  Senator  Mundt,  of  South  Dakota,  and  had  no  relevancy  or  ap- 
plicability to  any  other  hearing  or  any  other  committee  function. 

Mr.  Chauwick.  Mr.  Williams,  I  stated  I  could  not  affirm  that  fact 
because  I  am  not  authorized  and  have  no  power  to  construe,  limit  the 
effect  of  an  order  of  the  President.  It  is  manifestly,  on  its  face,  re- 
lated to  the  matters  in  question. 

Mr.  WiLLL\Ms.  To  the  matters? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Whether  it  goes  further,  sir,  I  cannot  limit  it  by 
any  stipulation  which  I  would  enter  into. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  we  will  check  that  mat- 
ter further  in  the  light  of  what  Mr.  Williams  has  now  called  to  our 
attention  and  if  it  should  appear  to  be  irrelevant  and  immaterial  to 
the  present  issue  and  has  no  bearing  on  it,  it  will  be  excluded. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  submit  to  you  herewith  a  brief 
prepared  by  the  staff  summariizng  the  pertinent  cases,  rules.  Presi- 
dential orders,  and  directives  and  other  legal  matters,  which  will  be 
cited  and  relied  upon  by  the  staff  in  support  of  the  propositions  de- 
veloped before  the  committee. 

We  request  and  suggest  that  it  shall  be  printed  as  a  supplement  to 
the  record,  subject  to  additions  and  corrections. 

This  brief  is  not  submitted  as  testimony,  but  is  convenient  reference 
material  for  the  committee  and  Senate  and  any  other  interested 
persons. 

A  copy  of  this  brief  has  been  supplied  to  Mr.  Williams. 

The  Chairman.  I  take  it  from  your  statement  it  could  be  proved. 
That  seems  to  be  proper. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  May  I  proceed,  sir,  to  cite  the  headings  of  this 
brief  and  such  matters  therein  as  seem  pertinent  to  read  into  the  record 
now  for  the  immediate  information  of  the  committee? 

The  Chairman.  You  may. 

We  do  not  want  you  to  read  the  whole  brief,  but  you  may  cite  the 
material  therein. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  This  is  submitted  as  pertaining  to  law  relating  to 
specifications  I  to  V,  inclusive,  the  specifications  being  those  adopted 
in  the  notice  which  the  chairman  gave  before  the  commencement  of 
these  hearings. 

With  respect  to  part  I,  which  is  contempt  of  Senate  or  committee,  we 
call  attention  to  the  Legislative  Reorganization  Act  of  1945,  Public 
Law  601,  and  section  102  thereof  for  standing  committees  of  the 
Senate. 

We  have  referred  and  read  into  the  record  and  reference  has  been 
made  to  Senate  Resolution  187  of  the  82d  Congress,  the  1st  session, 
introduced  by  Senator  Banton  of  Connecticut  and  referred  on  August 
6,  1951 — and  I  shall  not  read  all  the  material  which  follows.  It  is 
available  for  the  committee,  for  Mr.  Williams,  and  for  the  record. 

We  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  Gillette-Hennings  subcommittee  had  or  had  not 
the  power  to  subpena  Senator  McCarthy.    He  did  not  demand  a  sub- 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  131 

pena  and  no  subpena  was  issued.  It  was  clear  the  subcommittee  had 
the  power  to  request  his  appearance  other  than  by  subpena. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections 
was  not  limited  to  the  conduct  of  Senator  McCarthy  connected  with 
elections,  but  the  jurisdiction  of  that  subcommittee  extended  to  acts 
totally  unconnected  with  election  matters,  but  which  were  relevant  in 
inquiries  relating  to  expulsion,  exclusion,  and  censure. 

We  call  attention  to  the  Congressional  Record  of  the  Senate  of 
April  8, 1952,  at  page  3701 ;  also  at  pages  3753  to  3756. 

We  call  attention  to  the  purpose  of  the  introduction  of  Senate  Reso- 
lution 300,  82d  Congress,  2d  session,  by  Senator  Hayden,  on  April 
8,  1952,  as  shown  by  the  Congressional  Record  and  the  senatorial 
debate,  that  it  was  to  affirm  or  deny  the  contention  of  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy that  the  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  lacked 
jurisdiction  to  investigate  such  acts  of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  as 
were  not  connected  with  elections  and  campaigns,  as  well  as  to  bring 
before  the  Senate  the  charges  of  Senator  McCarthy  reflecting  upon 
the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  the  members  of  the  subcommittee. 

The  matter  of  the  Senate  vote  on  that  is  referred  to. 

On  the  question  of  the  nature  of  the  Senate  as  a  continuing  body, 
the  contention  has  been  made  that  the  Senate  is  not  a  continuing  body 
and  that  the  incidents  under  category  I,  relating  to  contempt  of  the 
Senate  or  a  senatorial  committee,  cannot  be  inquired  into  by  the  select 
committee  under  the  authority  of  at  least  three  cases  cited.  Those 
cases  are : 

Anderson  v.  Dunn  in  6  Wheaton,  204 ; 

Journey  v.  McCrachen  (294  U.  S.  125)  ; 

United  States  v.  Bryan  (339  U.  S.  323). 

All  cases  were  cited  by  Mr.  Williams  in  oral  argument  or  state- 
ment before  this  committee. 

This  statement  by  counsel  im])lies  that  the  Senate  may  censure  a 
member  only  when  he  is  guilty  of  contempt. 

Counsel  for  the  committee  does  not  believe  there  is  any  legal  limi- 
tation to  this  effect  and  that  there  are  acts  on  the  part  of  a  member 
of  the  Senate  which  may  warrant  his  censure  unrelated  to  any  of 
contempt  toward  the  Senate  or  one  of  its  committees.  Furthermore, 
the  examination  of  the  three  cases  cited  shows  that  they  are  without 
direct  application  or  control  to  this  question. 

We  cite  Senate  Document  No.  99  of  the  83d  Congress,  2d  session, 
a  document  entitled  "Congressional  -^Power  of  Investigation."  We 
have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  on  page  7,  while  the  rule  with 
reference  to  the  House,  whose  Members  are  all  elected  for  a  period 
of  a  single  Congress,  may  be  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  two  Houses 
of  Parliament,  this  rule  cannot  be  the  case  with  the  Senate,  which  is 
a  continuing  body  w^hose  Members  are  elected  for  a  term  of  6  years 
and  so  divided  into  classes  that  the  seats  of  one-third  only  become 
vacant  at  the  end  of  each  Congress,  two-third  always  continuing  into 
the  next  Congress. 

The  continuity  of  the  Senate  was  questioned  at  the  beginning  of 
the  83d  Congress  and  the  issue  Avas  resolved  in  favor  of  the  uniform 
precedents.  See  Senate  rule  XXXII,  providing  that  the  legislative 
business  of  the  Senate  shall  be  resumed  and  proceeded  with  as  if  no 
adjournment  had  taken  place  and  all  papers  referred  to  committees 
and  not  reported  upon  at  the  close  of  a  session  of  Congress  shall  be 


132  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

delivered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  to  the  several  committees  to 
Avhich  they  had  previously  been  referred. 

We  also  call  attention  to  the  Senate  debate  in  the  Congressional 
Record  of  the  Senate  of  January  6,  1953,  pages  92  to  114. 

We  also  call  attention  to  Senate  Document  No.  4  of  1933,  of  the 
83d  Congress  and  to  the  case  of  McGrain  v,  Doherty  (273  U.  S.  135), 
at  page  181.    The  date  was  1927. 

See  also  Senate  rule  XXV,  page  42  (3) . 

D,  Necessity  of  an  oath  before  congiessional  committees : 

In  reference  to  the  necessity  of  an  oath  before  congressional  com- 
mittees, and  the  contention  heretofore  raised  before  this  committee, 
we  refer  to  page  18  of  Senate  Document  No.  99,  83d  Congress,  2d 
session,  previously  referred  to,  which  states : 

While  the  administration  of  an  oath  to  a  witness  adds  dignity  to  a  congres- 
sional hearing,  it  is  not  essential — 

since  the  Senate  may  make  its  own  rules,  even  in  censure  or  expulsion 
cases,  and  there  is  no  rule  requiring  the  administration  of  an  oath  to 
a  witness,  it  is  respectfuly  submitted  that  the  point  is  not  well  taken. 

On  the  general  power  of  the  Senate  to  censure  one  of  its  INIembers, 
article  1,  section  5,  clause  1,  of  the  Constitution  provides  that  each 
House  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualifications 
of  its  own  Members. 

Clause  2  of  the  same  section  provides  that  each  House  may  deter- 
mine the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  punish  its  Members  for  disorderly 
behavior,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  expel  a  Member. 

Senate  rule  XIX,  clause  2,  provides  that  no  Senator  in  debate 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  any  form  of  words  impute  to  another 
Senator  or  to  other  Senators  any  conduct  or  motive  unworthy  or 
unbecoming  a  Senator.  These  provisions  are  respectfully  called  to 
the  attention  of  the  select  committee,  not  as  limitations  upon  the 
extent  of  censurable  conduct,  but  as  perhaps  pertinent  to  the  present 
inquiry. 

Part  11.  Law  relating  to  invitation  for  and  use  of  classified  material : 

In  this  connection  we  cite  the  statutory  oath  imposed  upon  employees 
of  the  Government  generally  and  particularly  as  Senator  Case  asked 
us  to  make  a  reference  to  this  as  a  part  of  the  record.  The  oath  of 
office  is  as  follows : 

1,  ,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)   that  I  will  support  and  defend  the 

Constitution  of  the  United  States  against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic ; 
that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same ;  that  I  take  this  obliga- 
tion freely,  without  any  mental  reservation  or  purpose  of  evasion  ;  and  that  I  will 
well  and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  in  which  I  am  about  to 
enter.    So  help  me  God.     (5  U.  S.  16.) 

We  assume,  sir,  for  purposes  of  information  of  the  committee,  that 
the  staff  has  been  as  yet  unable  to  find  that.  A  search  of  the  statutes 
fails  to  disclose:  (a)  any  provision  for  administering  or  any  form 
of  "security  oath,"  or  (b)  any  provision  for  or  protection  of  "the  chain 
of  command  of  the  civil  service,"  referred  to  in  amendment  14  pro- 
posed by  Senator  Flanders. 

We  cite  the  Espionage  Act,  Ignited  States  Code  chapter  37  on  the 
subject  Espionge  and  Censorship.  I  refer  only  to  sections  thereof 
which,  of  course,  will  be  set  out  in  full. 

Title  18,  section  793(d)  covers  "gathering,  transmitting,  or  losing 
defense  information." 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  133 

The  Scame  section,  792,  covers  harboring  or  concealing  any  person 
"who  he  knows  or  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  or  suspect,  has 
committed  or  is  about  to  commit,  an  affense  under  sections  793  or  794" 
of  this  article  "shall  be" — and  there  follows  a  statement  of  the  penalty 
in  connection  therewith,     (June  25,  1948,  ch.  645,  62  Stat.  736.) 

Of  the  pertinent  subject  with  which  we  are  dealing,  and  under  the 
subhead  "crimes,  general  provisions,  misprision  of  felony,"  we  cite 
United  States  Code,  chapter  I,  title  18,  section  4,  which  I  shall  read : 

Whoever,  having  knowledge  of  the  actual  commission  of  a  felony  cognizable 
by  a  court  of  the  United  States,  conceals  and  does  not  as  soon  as  possible  make 
known  the  same  to  some  judge  or  other  person  in  civil  or  military  authority 
under  the  United  States,  shall  be  fined  (penalty,  etc.).  (June  25,  1948,  ch. 
645,  62  Stat.  684. 

On  the  subject  Disclosure  of  Confidential  Information  Generally, 
( 18  U.  S.  Code,  sec.  1905) ,  reads : 

Whoever,  being  an  officer  or  employee  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  depart- 
ment or  agency  thereof,  publishes,  divulges,  discloses,  or  makes  known  in  any 
manner  or  to  any  extent  not  authorized  by  law  any  information  coming  to 
him  in  the  course  of  his  employment  or  official  duties  *  *  *     shall  be — 

and  this  is  followed  in  the  act  by  the  statement  of  the  penalty. 

On  the  subject  of  Activities  Affecting  Armed  Forces.  Generally,  we 
cite  the  act  of  June  25,  1948,  chapter.  645,  62  Stat.  c.  811,  as  amended 
May  24, 1949,  chapter  139,  section  46,  63  Stat.  96. 

From  that  section,  I  read  ifi  more  detail  the  provisions  of  sec- 
tion (b)  : 

For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  the  term  "military  or  navel  forces  of  the 
United  States"  includes  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  the  Navy,  Air  Force, 
Marine  Corps,  Coast  Guard,  Naval  Reserve,  Marine  Corps  Reserve,  and  Coast 
Guard  Reserve  of  the  United  States ;  and,  when  any  merchant  vessel  is  com- 
missioned in  the  Navy  or  is  in  the  service  of  the  Army  or  the  Navy,  includes 
the  master,  officers,  and  crew  of  such  vessel. 

On  the  subject  of  Kemoval  from  Classified  Civil  Service,  we  cite  an 
act  which  has  been  referred  to  heretofore  in  the  hearings,  or  in  the 
testimony.  We  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  last  sentence 
of  an  act  approved  August  24, 1912  (37  Stat.  555,  U.  S.  C.  5,  652  (d) ), 
whicli  reads: 

The  right  of  persons  employed  in  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States,  either 
individually  or  collectively  to  petition  Congress,  or  any  Member  thereof,  or  to 
furnish  information  to  either  House  of  Congress,  or  to  any  committee  or 
member  thereof,  shall  not  be  deeuied  or  interfered  with. 

As  I  say,  this  has  been  cited  before  in  the  hearing,  or  in  the  testi- 
mony, upon  which  our  evidence  is  based.  We  include  it  at  this  point, 
because  we  feel  that  this  provision  has  little,  if  any,  application  to 
these  hearings,  because  the  act  as  an  entirety  refers  to  removals  of 
persons  from  classified  civil  service  for  sufiicient  cause,  and  after 
due  notice  and  written  charges. 

Furthermore,  this  act  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  subsequent 
pertinent  resolutions  and  Executive  orders,  under  the  heading  "U.  S. 
Code,  Title  5,  Section  22,"  which  reads  as  follows : 

The  head  of  each  department  is  authorized  to  prescribe  regulations,  not  incon- 
sistent with  law,  for  the  government  of  bis  department,  the  conduct  of  its  officers 
and  clerks,  the  distribution  and  performance  of  its  business,  and  the  custody,  use, 
and  preservation  of  the  records,  papers,  and  property  appertaining  to  it. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chadwick,  do  you  know  the  date  of  that  statute? 
Mr.  Chadwick.  I  can  get  it  in  just  a  minute. 


134  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Senator  Case.  I  note  that  the  date  of  the  section  you  earlier  read 
with  reference  to  persons  in  the  chxssified  civil  service  was  1912,  and 
that  the  date  of  the  sections  you  read  from  the  Espionage  Act  were 
various  dates,  principally  June  25, 1948 ;  but  I  think  it  would  be  helpful 
to  have  the  date  of  the  section  you  just  read,  too. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  it  now,  sir,  and  inserted 
before  the  matter  reaches  the  committee.  It  will  take  me  a  few  minutes 
to  get  the  date  and  if  I  may,  I  will  proceed  with  the  other  matter  and 
supply  it  as  soon  as  we  are  able  to  do  so. 

Is  that  satisfactory.  Senator  Case? 

Senator  Case.  That  is  all  right. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Subhead  H,  Department  of  Justice  Order  No.  3229, 
counsel  calls  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice order  which  was  filed  on  May  2, 1946, 11  Federal  Kegister  4920, 18 
Federal  Register  1369,  which  reads : 

Pursuant  to  authority  vested  in  me  by  Revised  Statutes  161,  United  States 
Code  title  V,  section  22,  it  is  hereby  ordered  that  all  oflficial  files,  documents,  and 
records  and  information  in  the  offices  of  the  Department  of  Justice,  including  the 
several  offices  of  the  United  States  attorneys,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
United  States  marshal,  and  Federal  penal  and  correctional  institutions,  or  in  the 
custody  or  control  of  any  officer  or  employee  within  the  Department  of  Justice, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  confidential. 

No  officer  or  employee  may  permit  the  disclosure  or  use  of  same  for  any  purpose 
other  than  for  the  performance  of  his  official  duties  except  in  the  discretion  of  th» 
Attorney  General  or  Assistant  Attorney  General  acting  for  liim. 

This  order  was  held  valid  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in 
United  States  ex  rel.  Touhy  v.  Regan  (340,  U.  S.  462),  in  the  year 
1951. 

But  the  subhead  which  is  marked  "I,"  we  go  at  some  length  into  the 
Presidential  directive  of  March  13,  1948,  13  Federal  Register  1359, 
under  the  title  of  Presidential  directive,  March  13, 1948,  "Confidential 
Status  of  Employee  Loyalty  Report,"  a  memorandum  to  all  offices  and 
employees  of  the  Federal  branch  of  the  Government. 

The  directive  contains  these  further  orders : 

This  directive  shall  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register  and  over  the  signature 
of  Harry  S.  Truman.    The  date,  March  13,  1948. 

The  above  order  apparently  was  in  effect  in  May  or  June  of  1953 
when  Senator  McCarthy  received  the  214-page  document,  according 
to  his  statement  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearing,  and  also  at  the  time 
of  his  public  invitation  during  those  hearings. 

We  call  attention,  under  subtitle  J,  to  Executive  Order  10290.  Title 
3,  the  President.  Executive  Order  10290  prescribing  regulations 
and  establishing  minimum  standards  for  the  classification,  transmis- 
sion, and  handling  by  departments  and  agencies  of  the  executive 
branch  of  official  information  which  requires  safeguarding  in  the 
interest  of  the  security  of  the  United  States. 

I  shall  read  the  order  in  more  detail : 

Whereas  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  protect  the  national  security  of  the  United 
States,  to  establish  for  the  safeguarding  of  official  information,  the  unauthorized 
disclosure  of  which  would  or  could  harm,  tend  to  impair,  or  otherwise  threaten 
the  security  of  the  Nation ;  and 

Whereas  it  is  desirable  and  proper  tliat  minimum  standards  for  pi-ocedures 
designed  to  protect  the  national  security  against  such  unauthorized  disclosure 
be  uniformly  applicable  to  all  departments  and  agencies  of  the  executive  branch 
of  the  Government  and  be  known  to  and  understood  by  those  who  deal  with  the 
Federal  Government ;  and 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  135 

Whereas  the  furnishing  of  information  to  the  public  about  Government  activ- 
ities will  be  facilitated  by  clear  identification  and  marking  of  those  matters, 
the  safeguarding  of  which  is  required  in   the  interest   of  national   security; 

Now,  therefore,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  me  by  the  Constitution  and 
statutes,  and  as  President  of  the  United  States,  the  regulations  attached  hereto, 
entitled  "Regulations  Establishing  Minimum  Standards  for  the  Classification, 
Transmission,  and  Handling,  by  Departments  and  Agencies  of  the  Executive 
Branch,  of  Official  Information  Which  Requires  Safeguarding  in  the  Interest  of 
the  Security  of  the  United  States,"  are  hereby  prescribed  for  application 
throughout  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  to  the  extent  not  inconsistent 
with  law. 

Such  regulations  shall  take  effect  30  days  after  their  publication  in  the 
Federal  Register. 

All  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  may  have  knowledge  of  or  access  to  class- 
ified security  information  are  requested  to  observe  the  standards  established 
in  such  regulations  with  respect  to  such  information  and  to  join  with  the 
Federal  Government  in  a  concerted  and  continuing  effort  to  prevent  disclosure 
of  such  information  to  persons  who  are  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States. 

That  is  signed  by  Harry  S.  Truman,  the  White  House,  September 
24,  1951. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  instrument  itself  is  law  and  will  have  to  be  read 
by  the  committee  with  particularity,  and  it  has  no  doubt  been  read 
by  Mr.  Williams.    I  will  refrain  from  rereading  it  in  its  entirety. 

Under  title  K  we  referred  to  Executi\e  Order  10450  of  April  27, 
1953,  title  III,  the  President— Executive  Order  10450,  Security  Ke- 
quiremeiits  for  Government  Employment. 

This  order  is  signed  by  D wig] it  D.  Eisenhower  and  dated  April  27, 
195o.    It  is  as  follows : 

Whereas  the  intei'cst  of  the  national  security  requires  that  all  persons  priv- 
ileged to  be  employed  in  their  departments  and  agencies  of  the  Government  shall 
be  reliable,  trustworthy,  of  good  conduct  and  character,  and  of  complete  and 
unswerving  loyalty  to  the  United  States,  and. 

Whereas  the  American  tradition  that  all  persons  should  receive  impartial  and 
equitalile  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  Government  requires  that  all  persons 
seeking  the  privilege  of  employment  or  privileged  to  be  employed  in  the  depart- 
ments and  agencies  of  the  Government  be  judged  by  mutually  consistent  and 
no  less  than  minimum  standards  and  procedures  among  the  departments  and 
agencies  governing  tlie  employment  and  retention  in  employment  of  persons 
in  the  Federal  service. 

Now,  therefore,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  me  by  the  Constitution 
and  statutes  of  tlie  United  States,  including  section  17.53  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States  (5  U.  S.  C.  631),  the  Civil  Service  Act  of  18S3  (22  Stat.  403, 
.5  U.  S.  C.  632,  et  seq.),  section  9A  of  the  act  of  April  2.  Ilt3;»  (.53  Stat.  1148,  5 
U.  S.  C.  118j).  and  the  act  of  August  20,  1J).50  (64  Stat.  476,  5  U.  S.  C.  2201  et 
seq.),  and  as  President  of  the  United  States,  and  deeming  such  action  necessary 
in  the  best  interests  of  the  national  security,  it  is  hereby  ordered  as  follows : 

Section  1 :  In  addition  to  the  departments  and  agencies  specified  in  the  said 
act  of  August  26,  1950,  and  Executive  Order  No.  10237  of  April  26,  1951,  the 
provisions  of  that  act  shall  apply  to  all  other  departments  and  agencies  of  the 
Government. 

Section  2.  The  head  of  each  department  and  agency  of  the  Government  shall 
be  responsible  for  establishing  and  niaintain.ing  within  his  department  or  agency 
an  effective  program  to  insure  that  the  employment  and  retention  in  employment 
of  any  civilian  officer  or  employee  within  the  department  or  agency  is  clearly 
consistent  with  the  interests  of  the  national  security. 

The  reports  and  other  investigative  material  and  information  developed  by 
invesfiiiations  conducted  pursuant  to  any  statute,  order,  or  program  described 
in  .section  7  of  this  order  shall  remain  the  property  of  the  investigative  agencies 
conducting  the  investigations,  but  may,  subject  to  considerations  of  the  national 
security,  be  retained  by  the  department  or  agency  concerned.  Such  reports  and 
other  investigative  material  and  information  shall  be  maintained  in  confidence, 
and  in  no  access  shall  be  given  thereto  except,  with  the  consent  of  the  investiga- 
tive agency  concerned  to  other  departments  and  agencies  conducting  security  pro- 


136  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

grams  under  the  authority  granted  by  or  in  accordance  with  the  said  act  of 
August  26,  1950,  as  may  he  required  for  the  efficient  conduct  of  Government 
business. 

Section  15 :  This  order  shall  become  effective  30  days  after  the  date  hereof. 

The  publication  date  of  the  order  is  Federal  Register  Document 
50-3794,  filed  April  27,  1953,  under  an  hour  of  4 :  04  p.  m. 

This  directive  was  apparently  effective  in  May  and  June  of  1953 
and  during  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings. 

Under  the  subheading  "L"  of  Executive  Order  10501  of  Novem- 
ber 5,  1953,  "safeguarding  oflicial  information  in  the  interests  of  the 
defense  of  the  United  States"  the  subject  matter  of  the  order  is  quite 
lengthy. 

I  will  content  myself  with  reading  only  sections  18,  19,  and  20 
and  over  the  signature  of  the  President. 

Section  18  is  entitled,  "Review  Within  Departments  and  Agencies." 

It  goes  on  to  state : 

The  head  of  each  department  and  agency  shall  designate  a  member  or  mem- 
bers of  his  staff  who  shall  conduct  a  continuing  review  of  the  implementation 
of  this  order  within  the  department  or  agency  concerned  to  insure  that  no 
information  is  withheld  hereunder  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
a  right  to  know,  and  to  insure  that  classified  defense  information  is  properly 
safeguarded  in  conformity  herewith. 

Section  19 :    Revocation  of  Executive  Order  No.  102900. 

Executive  Order  No.  10290  of  September  24,  1951,  is  revoked  as  of  the  effec- 
tive date  of  this  order. 

Section  20:  Effective  date.  This  order  shall  become  effective  on  December 
15,  1953. 

This  appears  in  Federal  Register  Docket  53-9553,  filed  November 
9, 1953,  under  an  hour  of  9  :  55  a.  m. 

We  refer  to  subheading  "M"  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  revised  and  annotated  1952,  Senate  Document  170, 
82d  Congress,  2d  session,  page  82 : 

If  Congress  so  provides,  violation  of  valid  administrative  regulations  may  be 
provided  as  crimes.    But  the  penalty  must  be  provided  in  the  statute  itself.  *  *  * 

Mr,  Chairman,  referring  to  part  III  or  category  III  of  our  presenta- 
tion under  this  notice  on  the  subject  of  "Abuse  of  Colleagues,"  we 
cite  the  United  States  Constitution,  article  I,  section  6,  clause  1 : 

The  Senators  and  Representatives  *  *  *  for  any  speech  or  debate  in  either 
House  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

The  constitutional  clause  is  intended  to  protect  the  Members  against 
suit  or  prosecution,  not  for  their  own  benefit,  but  to  enable  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  to  execute  the  functions  of  their  office  with- 
out fear.  It  is  an  absolute  privilege  and  immunity  against  all  but 
the  House  itself. 

We  cite  Jefferson's  Manual,  section  3;  Hind's  Precedents  of  the 
House,  1907,  section  1244,  page  797;  the  Journal  of  the  1st  session 
of  the  39th  Congress,  May  14, 1866,  page  695 ;  Globe,  page  2573 ;  Hind's 
Precedents  of  the  House,  page  795. 

The  United  States  Constitution  by  article  I,  section  5,  clause  2, 
provides : 

Each  House  may  determine  the  Rules  of  its  Proceedings,  punish  its  members 
for  disorderly  behavior,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  expel  a  member. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  137 

Now,  from  the  Standing  Rules  of  the  Senate,  we  cite  rule  XIX, 
section  2 : 

No  Senator  in  debate  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  any  form  of  words  impute 
to  another  Senator  or  to  other  Senators  any  conduct  or  motive  unworthy  or 
unbecoming  a  Senator. 

We  refer  to  Jefferson's  Manual,  section  XVII. 

We  refer  to  the  Legislative  Reorganization  Act  the  powers  of  com- 
mittee and  government  operations. 

As  to  part  1,  Standing  Rules  of  the  Senate,  standing  committees  of 
the  Senate,  section  102  is  as  follows : 

Rule  XXV  of  the  Standing  Rules  of  the  Senate  is  amended  to  read  as  follows : 

"Rule  XXV 

"standing  committees 

"(1)  The  following  standing  committtees  shall  be  appointed  at  the  com- 
mencement of  each  Congress,  with  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise ;  *  *  * 

"(g)  (1)  Committee  on  Government  Operations,  to  consist  of  13  Senators,  to 
which  committee  shall  be  referred  all  proposed  legislation,  messages,  j)etitions, 
memorials,  and  other  matters  relating  to  the  following  subjects : 

"(A)   Budget  and  accounting  measures,  otlier  than  appropriations. 

"(B)   Reorganizations  in  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government. 

"(2)    Such  committee  shall  have  the  duty  of— 

"(A)  Receiving  and  examining  reports  of  the  Comptroller  General  of  the 
United  States  and  of  submitting  such  recommendations  to  the  Senate  as  it  deems 
necessary  or  desirable  in  connection  with  the  subject  matter  of  such  reports ; 

"(B)  Studying  the  operation  of  Government  activities  at  all  levels  with  a  view 
to  determine  its  economy  and  efficiency ; 

"(C)  Evaluating  the  effects  of  laws  enacted  to  reorganize  the  legislative  and 
executive  branches  of  the  Government ; 

"(D)  Studying  intergovernmental  relationships  between  the  United  States 
and  the  States  and  municipalities,  and  between  the  United  States  and  interna- 
tional organizations  of  which  the  United  States  is  a  member." 

As  to  part  IV,  "Procedure  Before  Investigating  Committees,"  the 
first  part  of  the  discussion  is  with  respect  to  the  rights  of  witnesses 
before  congressional  committees. 

We  refer  to  Senate  Document  99,  8od  Congress,  2d  session,  filed 
1954. 

Under  the  subheading  of  "Disgracing  and  Inconveniencing  Ques- 
tions," there  is  a  discussion  on  the  rights  and  duties  of  witnesses. 

Then  on  page  16  the  right  to  counsel,  the  privilege  of  a  witness  to 
have  advice  of  counsel  depends  u23on  the  committee,  and  the  rule  has 
varied  a  good  deal. 

There  are  some  citations  at  length  on  the  subject. 

On  page  17,  under  the  heading  of  cross-examination  there  is  this 
provision :  Whether  a  witness  or  his  counsel  may  cross-examine  other 
witnesses  depends  on  the  attitude  of  the  committee. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  custom  is  to  permit  little  or  no  cross-exami- 
nation, then  there  is  a  citation  and  a  more  extended  discussion. 

And  on  a  subject  of  presenting  written  statements  or  calling  wit- 
nesses, a  discussion. 

And  with  respect  to  the  pertinency  of  testimony,  discussion  and, 
Mr.  Williams,  a  citation  of  Sinclair  v.  U.  S.  ((1929)  279  United 
States,  263) ,  with  a  quotation  therefrom. 

And  on  page  18  under  No.  7,  with  respect  to  defamation  by  a  con- 
gressional witness,  material  and  discussion  and  cases. 


138  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

On  paga  19,  with  respect  to  the  undignified  activity  of  a  member, 
discussion,  citation  of  tlie  case  of  TJ .  S.  v.  Peehart  et  al.  ((1952)  183 
Fed.  Supp.  417),  and  referring  to  a  case  Barsky  v.  U.  S.  ( (1943)  167 
Fed.  Second  241,  250). 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Cliairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Just  judging  by  the  headings  of  these  several  para- 
graphs which  counsel  has  placed  into  the  record  and  without  reading 
the  detailed  subject  matter,  it  occurs  to  me  that  at  least  the  para- 
graphs under  the  heading  "Right  of  Witnesses  Before  Congressional 
Conmiittees"  and  the  i-ight  of  counsel  and  the  right  of  cross-examina- 
tion would  well  be  worth  reading  in  detail,  and  if  time  permits  and 
under  the  plan  of  the  morning  session,  I  would  like  to  have  them 
read. 

Mr.  Chadwtck.  I  should  be  very  glad  to  read  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  under  the  heading  part  IV,  "Pro- 
cedure Before  Investigating  Committees"  and  reading  the  paragraph 
labeled  "x\,"  "Rights  of  Witnesses  Before  Congressional  Committees," 
I  wonder  if  counsel  might  proceed  with  that? 

Mr.  Chadwick.  To  spare  my  voice,  I  request  that  associate  counsel 
read  this. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  de  Furiu  will  proceed  to  read. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  With  the  permission  of  the  chairman,  part  IV, 
"Procedure  Before  Investigating  Committees,"  section  A — 

The  Chairman.  What  are  you  reading  from  ? 
Mr.  DE  Furia.  This  is  a  resum^  of  the  law,  Mr.  Chairman,  made  by 
i\\^  staff  for  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  reading  from  the  Reorganization  Act, 
or  merely  a  statement  commenting  on  it  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  It  is  a  comment  of  the  committee  counsel,  the  choice  of 
the  words  being  mostly  our  own,  based  upon  an  interpretation  of  the 
authorities,  cases,  and  statutes,  as  well  as  the  precedents  of  the  House 
and  the  Senate,  relating  to  this  subject. 

The  Chairman.  \  ou  may  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FiTRiA.  Subsection  A,  "Rights  of  Witnesses  Before  Congres- 
sional Committees" : 

There  are  no  statutes  protecting  a  witness  appearing  before  a  congressional 
committee  from  intimidation  or  coercion.  In  fact,  tliere  are  very  few  absolute 
safeguards  for  tbe  protection  of  a  witui'ss  before  a  congressional  committee. 
His  treatment  generally  is  dependent  upon  the  attitude  of  the  chairman  and 
the  members  of  the  committee.  An  investigation  conducted  by  a  committee  is 
not  a  trial :  therefore  the  rules  of  a  court  of  law  do  not  apply.  Nor,  generally 
speaking,  do  the  constitutional  guaranties  relative — 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Who  is  saying  that?  Is  that  the  counsel's  discus- 
sion or  is  that  some  statement  by  some  authority,  or  is  that  a  statute  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  That  is  counsel's  conclusion,  Senator  Case,  based 
upon  the  authorities  cited.  I  did  not  read  the  authorities.  I  think 
you  have  a  copy  of  our  law  brief.  I  think  there  are  about  10  authori- 
ties.    I  will  be  ghid  to  read  them  into  the  record. 

Senatoi-  Case.  The  statements  you  have  read  are  the  conclusions  of 
counsel,  based  upon  autliorities  cited? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Yes,  sir. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  139 

Senator  Case.  But  tlie  statements  are  not  the  statements  of  any 
court  or  of  an,y  precise  authority  or  constitutional  precedents  or  con- 
gressional precedent. 

Mr.  DE  I^'uKiA.  No,  sir.  Wherever  we  have  a  quotation  from  an 
authority,  sir,  I  shall  indicate  quotation  marks. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  inquire  of  Senator  Case  whether  he  still 
wants  that  read,  since  it  is  not  a  citation  of  any  court  or  congressional 
adjudication  of  any  kind. 

Senator  Case.  1  note  below  there  are  some  quotation  marks. 
Whether  they  are  direct  quotes  from  something,  I  think  it  would  be 
just  as  well  to  have  them  read. 

The  CHAimiAN.  Would  counsel  please  read  the  quotation  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  will  be  time  for  argument  on  presenting  the 
various  views  with  respect  to  whatever  the  statute  and  rules  of  the 
Senate  are  in  due  time.  We  ]:)ermitted  the  reading  of  the  general 
subject  and  these  statutes  and  the  general  law  governing  this  inquiry^ 
governing  the  matter  of  accusations  that  have  been  refererd  to  us  by 
the  Senate. 

Senator  Case,  how  seriously  do  you  want  that  pressed? 

Senator  Case.  I  think  you  might  hnish  this  paragrapli  under  that 
heading,  and  whether  it  is  a  quotation  from  a  court  decision  or  whether 
it  is  counsel's  opinion. 

The  Chairman.  If  it  is  counsel's  o])inion,  you  do  not  want  him  to 
read  it,  do  you,  or  you  may  have  whatever  you  want  on  that. 

Senator  Case.  I  think  he  could  finish  the  paragraph  in  the  time  we 
are  discussing  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Nor,  generally  speaking,  do  the  constitutional  guar- 
anties relative  to  trials  have  any  application  except  possibly  those  re- 
lating to  the  privilege  against  self-incrimination — the  fifth  amend- 
ment— and  to  the  right  to  be  secure  against  unreasonable  searches  and 
seizures — the  fourth  amendment. 

In  conducting  a  hearing,  the  committee  thus  is  not  bound  to  follow 
the  rules  of  evidence  or  the  precedents  or  principles  of  courts  of  law. 
And  there  is  a  citation  from  various  authorities,  including  Townsend 
V.  United  States^  which  is  as  follows : 

*  *  *  study  of  the  practice  in  investigative  proceedings  and  of  the  rules 
pertaining  thereto  indicates  that  *  *  *  they  have  been  to  a  large  extent  un- 
trammeled  by  legal  rules  and  prescriptions,. 

Continuing  with  the  presentation  of  committee  counsel :  It  is  funda- 
mental, of  course,  that  the  investigation  nnist  be  in  ]nn-suit  of  a  legis- 
lative purpose.  But  as  investigation  will  be  presumed  to  have  such 
a  purpose  and  once  that  purpose  is  established,  the  inquiry  may  be  as 
broad,  searching,  and  exhaustive  as  is  necessary  to  make  effective  the 
constitutional  powers  of  Congress. 

Again  quoting  from  the  Supreme  Court  decision  of  Toiunsend  v. 
United  States: 

Within  the  realm  of  legislati\e  discretion,  the  exercise  of  good  taste  and 
good  judgment  in  the  examination  of  witnesses  must  be  entrusted  to  those 
who  have  been  vested  with  authority  to  conduct  such  investigations  *  *  *. 


52461 — 54 10 


140  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  witness  cannot  determine  for  himself  whether  the  questions 
proposed  are  germane  to  the  matter  of  inquiry ; 

orderly  processes  of  legislative  inquiry  require  tiiat  the  committee  shall  deter- 
mine such  questions  for  itself. 

Senator  Case,  the  chairman,  has  asked  me  to  read  the  provision 
from  United  States  Code  2,  section  193,  reading  as  follows : 

No  witness  is  privileged  to  refuse  to  testify  to  any  fact,  or  to  produce  any 
paper,  respecting  which  he  shall  be  examined  by  either  House  of  CongTess,  or 
by  any  .ioint  committee  established  by  a  joint  or  concurrent  resolution  of  the 
two  Houses  of  Congress,  or  any  committee  of  either  House,  upon  the  ground 
that  his  testimony  to  such  fact  or  his  production  of  such  papers  may  tend  to 
disgrace  him  or  otherwise  render  him  infamous. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  I  had  expected,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  pick  up  and  com- 
plete the  two  additional  pages  of  the  summary  of  which  I  was  engaged 
when  we  referred  to  some  particular  inquiry  therein. 

With  your  permission,  and  for  the  sake  of  certainty,  I  think  I  read 
at  page  19,  with  reference  to  the  undignified  activity  of  a  Member, 
without  reading  into  detail. 

On  page  19,  and  20,  12,  quorum  citations,  including  United  States 
Y.  DiCarlo  (1952,  102  Fed.  Supp.  597),  and  United  States  v.  Auippa 
(1952,  102  Fed.  Supp.  609)  ;  also  United  States  v.  Bryan  (1950,  339 
U.  S.  323,  332-335). 

At  pages  21  and  22  is  a  study  which  supports  certain  propositions 
which  are  cited  by  us  in  detail. 

The  final  reference  on  the  brief  is  to  the  rules  of  the  Senate, 
at  article  1,  sectioii  5,  clause  2,  of  the  Constitution,  authorizing 
the  Houses  to  determine  the  rules  of  their  proceedings,  and  legal 
propositions  citing  United  States  v.  Ballin  (114  U.  S.  1,  5,  1892, 
p.  97). 

That  is  the  conclusion  of  the  brief  in  its  present  form. 

Mv.  Williams.  Mr.  Cliairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  If  Mr.  Chadwick  has  concluded,  I  would  like  to 
say,  sir,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  his  legal  brief  going  into  the 
record,  provided  it  is  labeled  for  wliat  it  is.  It  is  a  vigorously 
partisan  advocate's  brief  on  the  law.  It  is  a  prosecutor's  brief, 
and,  as  such,  I  think  it  should  go  into  the  record  provided  it  is 
labeled  as  such  and  provided  it  is  identified  as  being  the  prosecutor's 
side  of  this  case. 

I  say  that,  sir,  for  this  reason :  In  this  brief  Mr.  Chadwick  under- 
takes to  answer  a  couple  of  arguments  which  I  was  not  permitted  to 
make  on  the  first  day.  I  don't  think  it  is  quite  fair  that  this  brief 
should  purport  to  be  an  impartial  analysis  of  a  law  when  it  at  the  same 
time  undertakes  to  refute  an  argument  which  I  probably  had  only 
completed  5  percent  of  at  the  time  I  was  interrupted  on  the  first  day. 

I  want  to  call  attention  also  to  this :  That  in  this  brief  counsel  says 
on  three  occasions,  where  he  said  orally  as  he  referred  to  it — 

We  have  decided  that  the  Gillette  committee  had  jurisdiction  contrary  to 
the  iwsition  advanced  by  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy. 

The  Chairman,  I  state,  Mr.  Williams,  that  is  not  the  decision  of 
the  committee.    That  is  the  decision  of  the  counsel. 

Mr,  Williams.  And  we  also 

The  Chairman.  I  would  say  also  no  committee  member,  as  far  as 
I  know,  has  read  tliis  brief. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  141 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir.    I  appreciate  that. 

He  also  said,  and  I  think  this  is  very  important : 

We  have  decided  it  is  not  Important  whether  Senator  McCarthy  was  suu- 
penaed  or  not  because  the  fact  is  he  was  not  and  did  not  demand  a  subpena. 

Mr.  Chadwick  has  arrived  at  this  startling  conclusion  without  hear- 
ing our  defense,  and  I  think  he  is  a  little  premature  in  making  de- 
cisions before  we  have  been  accorded  the  opportunity  either  to  pre- 
sent our  side  of  the  law  or  to  present  our  side  of  the  facts. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  say  this :  That  the  statement  by  Mr.  Chad- 
wick and  Mr.  de  Furia  represents  their  own  views  and  they  are  not 
the  views  of  the  committee,  and  no  decision  has  been  made  on  these 
points,  except  in  a  preliminary  way  we  had  to  decide  the  matters 
we  were  going  to  take  testimony  on  and  we  made  that  decision.  The 
final  decision  has  not  been  made  on  any  of  these  matters  and  when 
he  says  they  decided,  he  is  speaking  for  the  committee  counsel  and 
nobocly  else. 

Mr.  WiLLLVMS.  I  would  like  to  make  just  one  more  observation, 
if  I  may,  sir,  with  respect  to  this  material  which  Mr.  Chadwick  has 
presented  for  his  side  of  this  case. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  not  any  side  of  it,  as  far  as  the  committee 
is  concerned.  We  are  still  going  to  get  all  the  evidence,  all  the  law 
we  can  on  this  matter  that  is  pertinent  and  relevant.  We  want  to 
get  all  the  facts,  and  we  have  offered  to  subpena  anyone  that  you 
wanted,  or  to  follow  any  leads  that  you  had,  that  you  might  suggest, 
so  we  can  have  the  investigators  get  that  evidence  and  bring  the 
witnesses  before  this  committee,  so  long  as  it  is  relevant  and  pertinent 
to  the  hearings  on  these  particular  charges. 

Now,  that  being  the  situation,  I  think  what  the  gentlemen  have  clone 
here  is  in  keeping  with  the  whole  matter,  to  get  the  law. 

Of  course,  when  they  read  the  law,  read  a  statement  into  law  and 
they  go  over  a  matter,  apparently  they  have  it  to  make  up  their  minds 
whether  it  is  one  way  or  another;  otherwise  they  could  have  said, 
"It  might  be  this  way ;  it  might  be  the  other,"  and  it  would  be  of  very 
little  help  in  making  up  the  minds  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  would  hope,  if  Mr.  Chadwick  is  serving  as  legal 
counsel  to  the  committee,  he  will  not  impose  his  legal  mind  on  these 
propositions  before  we  are  given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Williams,  may  I  have  a  word  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  let  him  finish,  Mr.  Chadwick.  I  interrupted 
him,  and  I  want  him  to  finish. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  say  this  ajso :  Our  position  with  respect  to 
the  Gillette  committee  was  misrepresented,  and  I  am  sure  inadvertently 
misrepresented.  It  seems  to  me  in  this  brief  here  Mr.  Chadwick  has 
built  a  strawman  up  and  then  shot  him  down.  It  is  a  strawman  we 
don't  adopt.  We  have  never  said  at  any  time,  nor  do  we  say  now,  nor 
shall  we  say  hereafter,  that  the  Gillette  committee  did  not  have  juris- 
diction to  look  into  the  exclusion  and  expulsion  and  censure  matters. 

Wliat  we  did  say,  operating  as  it  was  under  the  Benton  resolution, 
was  that  it  did  not  have  the  authority  to  go  back  behind  1947  because 
the  Benton  resolution  gave  it  authority  only  to  go  to  1947,  as  it  was 
originally  drawn,  as  it  was  subsequently  ratified  by  the  Senate. 

Secondly,  there  was  a  reference  made  to  title  XVIII,  section  1905. 
The  brief  which  Mr.  Chadwick  has  handed  me  a  copy  of  does  not 


142  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

even  piirpoit  to  quote  all  of  that  statute.  It  talks  about  whoever 
being  an  officer  of  the  Government  divulges  or  discloses  or  makes 
known  information  shall  be  subject  to  a  penalty.  Half  the  statute  is 
quoted  and  Mr.  Chadwick  said  the  remaining  part  of  it  simply  related 
to  the  people's  sanction;  but  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  the  remaining 
part  of  the  statute  demonstrates  clearly  that  Congress  was  talking 
about  trade  secrets,  processes,  operations,  and  apparatuses,  insofar 
as  the  information  related  thereto  is  concerned, 

Tlien,  also,  the  statenieut  was  made  tliat  title  V,  section  652,  which 
guarantees  the  right  to  every  member  of  the  executive  department  to 
bring  information  to  Members  of  Congress  and  provides  specifically 
that  right  sliall  not  be  interfered  with,  was  read  in  this  brief,  and  Mr. 
Chadwick  made  the  remark,  as  he  read  it,  that,  of  course,  that  would 
be  superseded  by  regulations  and  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  specifically 
mentioning  the  resolutions  on  secrecy  or  tlie  Executive  orders  on 
secrecy  by  the  Pies i dent. 

I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact,  lest  any 
inference  be  drawn  from  what  Mr.  Chadwick  said  to  the  contrary, 
that  Congress  reenacted  title  V,  section  652,  in  1948,  4  months  after  we 
had  the  first  Truman  secrecy  order.  In  other  words.  Congress,  at  the 
time  that  it  passed  the  statute,  had  the  Truman  order  before  it.  Execu- 
tive order  on  secrecy,  and  in  the  face  of  that  it  reenacted  this  statute  to 
guarantee  to  members  in  the  executive  their  right  to  petition  Congress, 
and  to  give  them  such  information  as  they  have. 

Now,  I  think  those  things,  in  the  interest  of  fairness — I  know  I  am 
premature  in  getting  into  the  defense,  but  I  can't  let  these  matters  go 
unchallenged  when  they  are  given  in  the  guise  of  an  impartial  analysis 
of  the  law. 

I  say  I  have  no  objection  to  this  going  in  if  it  is  labeled  as  a  legal 
view  of  this  case,  Mr.  Chadwick's  legal  view  of  this  case,  but  certainly 
I  do  object  to  its  going  in  as  to  the  findings  on  the  law  of  impartial 
counsel. 

]\Ir.  Chadwick.  ]Mr.  Williams,  I  am  glad  to  have  an  opportunity  now 
to  reply  to  several  aspects  of  your  statement. 

First,  I  want  to  say,  sir,  in  all  respect,  that  the  brief  as  produced 
was  an  honest  effort  to  produce  an  impartial  review  of  the  law  as  we 
find  it,  without  application  to  the  matters  before  the  committee. 

Your  criticisms,  sir,  are  those  which  counsel  very  naturally  feels 
about  briefs  that  anyone  prepares.  We  always  feel  we  could  make  up 
a  better  one  or  we  regret  that  we  haven't  ])repared  a  better  one.  How- 
ever, the  paper  was  prepared  by  us  tinder  the  strict  instruction  of  this 
committee  that  our  approach  to  the  problem,  and  a  fair  approach, 
should  be  nonpartisan,  and  I  think  it  will  be  found  there  are  sections 
there  wdiich  a  lay  reader  might  believe  had  direct  a])])lication  to  the 
support  of  other  views  than  those  which  we  advanced. 

Now,  I  have  another  question :  You  point  to  the  fact  we  cited  three 
cases  which  you  had  quoted  to  us.  Naturally,  we  take  account  of  all 
cases  that  come  to  our  attention.  Whether  we  had  all  three  of  those 
cases,  or  not,  before  you  mentioned  them,  I  cannot  now  assert. 

I  tlo  assert,  however,  if  they  had  any  ai)plication  when  you  men- 
tioned them  at  the  bar  of  this  committee,  they  have  an  a]i]^lication  also- 
to  our  brief. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  143 

And,  Mr.  Williams,  is  it  not  the  fact  that  j^ou  promised  me  a  week 
ago  tliat  you  would  let  me  have  your  brief,  the  brief  in  support  of  your 
position  to  which  you  refer  ? 

It  is  my  recollection  you  called  me  afterward  and  said  you  would 
be  a  few  days  late,  and  I  said,  of  course,  your  time  was  my  time  on  the 
question  of  the  delivery  of  your  brief. 

Am  I  correct  in  stating  now  I  have  not  yet  seen  your  brief  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  You  are  correct  to  this  extent,  Mr.  Chadwick :  You 
are  correct  insofar  as  what  you  have  said,  but  you  haven't  stated  the 
whole  fact.  The  whole  fact  is  that  I  went  before  this  full  committee, 
which  was  in  executive  session,  I  believe,  on  Thursday  evening,  and  I 
told  the  committee  that  I  had  made  a  commitment  to  furnish  it  with 
certain  legal  principles  in  the  form  of  a  brief  and  the  commitment 
was  they  were  to  have  it  on  Thursday.  I  said  to  the  members  of  the 
committee,  and  you  were  present,  that  I  could  comply  with  t?iat  com- 
mitment if  I  kept  the  girls  in  the  office  at  the  mimeographing  machines 
late  that  evening.  It  was  the  Unanimous  feeling  of  the  committee  that 
I  should  not  do  that  and  if  I  presented  my  position  today  in  written 
form  that  I  would  fully  comport  with  the  desires  of  the  committee. 

That  is  the  fact,  Mr.  Chadwick,  and  I  propose  to  submit  my  brief 
here  today,  but  what  I  objected  to,  sir,  was  that  you  undertook  to 
answer  me  on  an  oral  argument  that  I  had  started  to  make,  but  was  not 
permitted  to  finish,  was  not  permitted  to  get  into,  which  I  do  not  think 
complies  with  the  basic  dictates  of  fair  play. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  Mr.  Williams,  that  is  a  matter  which  I  and  the 
committee  should  take  into  cognizance.  I  have  always  tried  to  be 
fair,  and  I  am  generally  successful.  I  didn't  mean  to  dispute  there 
was  any  question  with  respect  to  delay  in  the  preparation  of  your 
brief.  I  merely  pointed  out  we  could  not  postpone  the  preparation 
of  our  brief  until  your  very  efficient  and,  I  am  sure,  hard-worked  staff 
had  a  chance  to  prepare  yours. 

Senator  Ervix.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  make  just  this  obser- 
vation :  I  think  there  is  a  good  deal  to  what  Mr.  Williams  says  with 
reference  to  the  designation  of  the  brief.  Wlien  this  matter  goes  back 
to  the  Senate,  it  will  necessarily  go  on  the  record  made  before  this 
committee  and  I  think  it  would  be  helpful  to  the  Senate  to  have  the 
legal  views  of  Mr.  Chadwick  and  also  the  legal  views  of  Mr.  Williams 
and,  consequently,  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  if  we  incorporated 
the  legal  briefs  on  both  sides  in  the  record  for  the  use  of  the  Senate 
as  well  as  for  the  use  of  the  committee,  with  a  designation  to  the  effect 
that  they  do  represent  legal  views. 

I  would  like  to  make  one  additional  observation,  and  that  is  :  When 
the  chairman  ruled  he  would  take  the  evidence  rather  than  hear  the 
whole  oral  argument  of  Mr.  Williams  on  the  legal  question,  I  thought 
that  ruling  was  correct  because  I  have  spent  most  of  my  life  in  the 
law  and  I  have  found  out  that,  as  a  lawyer  or  as  a  judge,  I  never 
could  interpret  the  law  without  the  facts ;  that,  therefore,  you  have  to 
have  the  facts,  know  what  the  facts  are,  before  you  can  determine 
what  the  law  is  and  what  the  application  of  the  law  is.  For  that 
reason  I  think  the  ruling  of  the  chairman  to  the  effect  that  we  would 
hear  the  evidence  before  passing  on  the  point  of  law  raised  by  Mr. 


144         HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Williams  was  correct  because,  as  I  say,  and  as  Senator  Stennis  ex- 
pressed the  idea,  out  of  the  facts  the  law  arises. 

I  would  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  Senate  and  the  committee  to 
have  the  benefit  of  briefs  on  both  sides,  that  they  should  be  inserted 
in  the  record  and  designated  as  legal  views  so  that  the  Senate  might 
not  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  they  are  anything  except  the  legal 
views  presented. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  comments  ? 

At  this  point  I  think  I  should  make  this  statement :  That,  because 
of  the  holiday  period  and  the  vacation  period,  the  number  of  people 
whom  we  wanted  to  interview  before  we  proceeded  with  this  hearing, 
we  were  not  able  to  interview  them  or  were  not  even  able  to  find  their 
whereabouts.  So,  it  is  necessary  now  to  postpone  the  public  hearing 
for  a  time. 

The  fact  is  we  also  have  a  number  of  very  pressing  matters  that  the 
committee  must  take  consideration  of  in  executive  session.  So,  there 
won't  be  any  time  lost,  actually. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stennis. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  just  one  word  about  the 
briefs  ? 

It  just  occurs  to  me  the  committee  has  the  benefit  of  two  briefs  on 
this  matter,  on  the  law.  Neither  one  of  them  is  a  committee  brief. 
I  have  never  seen  either  one  of  them  and  I  am  anxious  to  see  both  of 
them.  They  will  be  helpful,  I  am  sure,  and  then  we  will  all  perhaps 
read  some  cases  pointed  out  in  those  briefs. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  not  possible.  Senator,  we  may  not  agree  with 
either  one  of  them  ? 

Senator  Stennis.  Yes.  That  is  the  inference.  Certainly  the  com- 
mittee has  no  brief  and  we  have  seen  no  brief,  and  we  are  anxious  to 
get  to  these  major  cases  that  may  be  reflected  in  each  brief. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  continue  with  my  statement. 

We  will  recess  this  hearing  until  2 :  30  this  afternoon. 

The  committee  will  meet  in  executive  session  immediately  following 
this  continuance. 

(Whereupon,  at  11 :  35  a.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed  to  reconvene 
at  2 :  30  p.  m,,  same  day.) 

AFTERNOON  SESSION 

(Thereupon,  at  2:  30  p.  m.,  the  committee  reconvened.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  in  session. 

Counsel  will  call  the  witness,  if  it  has  one. 

Mr.  DE  FuEiA.  JNIr.  Chairman,  we  have  here  under  subpena,  Mr. 
Walter  Winchell,  and  I  desire  that  he  be  called  and  sworn. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Winchell,  will  you  please  come  forward.  Raise 
your  right  hand  and  be  sworn. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  you  will  give  in  the  mat- 
ter now  pending  before  the  committee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes ;  I  do. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  145 

TESTIMONY  OF  WALTER  WINCHELL 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  With  the  permission  of  the  chairman,  Mr.  Winchell, 
what  is  your  full  name,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Walter  Winchell. 

Mr.  DE  FuMA.  And  your  address? 

Mr.  Winchell.  50  West  59th  Street,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  What  is  your  business  or  profession,  Mr.  Winchell  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Newspaper. 

Mr.  DE  FuKiA.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  newspaper  business? 

Mr.  Winchell.    Thirty-two  years. 

Mr.  DE  FuEiA.  Were  you  one  of  the  reporters,  Mr.  Winchell,  who 
covered  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings  here  last  May? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  write  a  column  during  the  course  of  those 
hearings  with  reference  to  a  copy  of  a  21/4-page  letter  or  document  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  In  a  column  which  you  wrote,  and  which  was  pub- 
lished, I  believe,  first  on  May  6,  and  later  on  May  9,  1954,  did  you  say 
that  you  had  in  your  possession  a  copy  of  the  214-page  document  or 
letter  addressed  to  General  Boiling  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes ;  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  de  Furia,  I  think  probably  you  had  better 
identify  that  a  little  closer  with  any  so-called  security  matter. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Yes,  sir. 

So  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding,  Mr.  Winchell,  between 
you  and  me,  we  are  referring  to  a  copy  of  a  letter  or  document  which 
was  produced  by  Senator  McCarthy  in  the  course  of  the  hearings  de- 
scribed as  classified  information,  with  the  words  "Personal  and  Confi- 
dential via  liaison"  from  the  FBI  to  General  Boiling,  with  reference 
to  espionage  matters  at  Fort  Monmouth. 

Are  we  in  accord  about  what  we  are  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  And  you  did  say  in  a  newspaper  column  written  by 
you  that  you  had  a  copy  of  that  *2i^-page  letter  or  document  in  your 
possession  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  When  did  you  first  obtain  possession  of  that  copy, 
Mr.  Winchell? 

JNIr.  Winchell.  If  you  are  asking  the  date,  counsel,  I  am  not  sure, 
the  exact  date.  But  it  was  during  one  of  the  hearings  here  in  this 
room. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Do  you  recall  the  first  day  that  you  wrote  an  article 
or  column,  or  made  a  radio  talk  referring  to  the  fact  that  you  had 
posession  of  a  copy  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Do  I  recall  the  date  ? 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Yes. 

Mr.  Winchell.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Can  we  agree  that  it  was  about  May  6  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Around  that  time ;  I  believe  that  would  be  correct. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Of  this  year? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 


146  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  DE  FuKiA.  What  time  of  the  daj^  did  you  receive  your  copy  of 
the  214-page  document  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  am  not  sure  whether  it  was  morning  or  afternoon, 
but  it  was  during  one  of  the  short  recesses. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  receive  it  here  in  this  Senate  caucus  room  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Outside  the  Senate  caucus  room. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  de  Furia,  I  think  if  we  are  going  to  talk  about 
a  21/4-page  document,  we  ought  to  have  that  document  carefully  iden- 
tified so  that  we  can  see  precisely  what  j'ou  are  referring  to  in  your 
interrogation  of  Mr.  Winchell,  so  that  Mr.  Winchell  will  know  exactly 
what  you  are  talking  about  Miien  you  allude,  as  you  have  3  or  4  times 
in  your  questioning,  to  a  2i/4-page  document.  What  214-page  docu- 
ment?   Let's  see  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Unfortunately,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  reasons  which 
will  become  evident  as  I  proceed  with  my  examination,  we  cannot  see 
it,  sir,  and  I  suggest  that  I  be  permitted  to  continue  the  examination. 

Mr.  Williams.  Unless  we  are  talking  about  a  214-page  document 
which  is  subject  matter  germane  to  this  inquiry,  all  of  this  questioning 
is  irrelevant.  So  I  think  it  should  be  established  what  we  are  talking 
about.  I  think  that  my  position  is  very  sound  and  I  ask  the  Chair 
to  rule. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Perhaps,  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Williams  was  not  lis- 
tening to  me  but  I  asked  Mr.  Winchell  specifically  whether  we  were 
talking  about  the  same  thing  and  described  the  letter  or  document  to 
him,  and  I  don't  think  there  is  any  misconception  between  Mr. 
Winchell  and  me.    I  don't  think  so.    Is  that  correct,  Mr.  Winchell? 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  de  Furia,  I  think  probably  you  could  identify 
it  a  little  further  by  asking  Mr.  Winchell  whether  or  not  he  was  in 
the  room  when  they  were  ciiscussing  a  certain  classified  document  or 
classified  information  during  the  course  of  the  hearings  and  if  that 
is  that  particular  one  that  he  had  reference  to.  I  am  certain  that  is 
the  one  w»  are  inquiring  about.  That  is  the  one  that  seems  to  be  in 
issue  here  under  one  of  these  categories. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Winchell,  were  you  present  during  the  Army-McCarthy  hear- 
ings when  Senator  McCarthy  presented,  or  had  in  his  possession,  and 
made  an  examination  with  reference  to,  a  paper  that  I  think  he  called 
a  letter,  a  214 -page  letter  that  was  marked  "Personal  and  Confidential" 
from  the  FBI  to  General  Boiling? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  satisfy  your  objection? 

Mr.  Williams.  Obviously,  unless  Mr.  Winchell  saw  the  document 
that  was  referred  to  during  the  Mundt  hearings,  Mr.  Winchell  does 
not  know  whether  the  copy  that  he  is  talking  about  is  a  copy  of  that 
document.  I  think  Mr.  de  Furia  must  first  ask  Mr.  Winchell  if  he  saw 
the  document  that  Senator  McCarthy  referred  to  and  that  was  handed 
to  Mr.  Jenkins  during  that  hearing.  Otherwise,  Mr.  Winchell  obvi- 
ously cannot  testify  to  whether  or  not  what  he  had  was  a  copy  of  it 
or  whether  it  even  purported  to  be  *a  copy  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  cannot  be  too  technical 
about  this  matter. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  do  not  want  to  be  technical,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  just 
want  it  to  be  established  before  this  interrogation  continues  that  Mr. 
Winchell  is  talking  about  the  same  thing  that  Mr.  de  Furia  is  and  I 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  147 

don't  see  how  we  can  establish  that  unless  Mr.  Winchell  saw  the  docu- 
ment that  Senator  McCarthy  had  in  his  hands  that  was  passed  to  Mr. 
Jenkins  and  it  was  passed  back  to  Senator  McCarthy.  If  he  saw  it,  I 
will  withdraw  my  objections  and  we  can  go  forward  because  then  he 
would  be  qualified  to  state  whether  or  not  the  document  which  he  had 
was  a  copy  of  it ;  but  I  don't  see  how  in  the  world  this  witness  can  say 
that  he  had  a  copy  of  a  document  that  he  never  saw. 

So  I  think  it  is  most  important  that  we  establish  whether  he  saw  it 
or  not. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  the  nature  of  the — the  very  nature  of  the 
document  itself  limits  the  identification.  When  it  was  before  the 
Mundt  committee,  as  I  recall  it,  very  few  of  the  committee  apparently 
saw  it. 

They  didn't  read  it,  at  least,  and  even  the  Army  counsel  would  not 
read  it,  nor  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  would  not  read  it,  and  I  think  it 
was  identified  sufficiently  so  that  we  know  what  he  was  talking  about. 

It  may  not  be  of  any  weight.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  I  think 
probably  it  will  help  you  rather  than  hurt  you. 

Mr.  Williams.  We  are  out  for  all  the  facts,  too,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  going  to  rule  that  he  may  proceed  and  go  on 
with  the  testimony. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  In  what  part  of  this  building,  Mr.  Winchell,  did  you 
receive  that  letter? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Directly  outside. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Outside  of  the  Senate  caucus  room  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  that  during  intermission  or  brief  period  during 
one  of  the  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  think  it  was  one  of  those  brief  recesses.  It  could 
have  been  such,  and  perhaps  was. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Who  handed  you  the  2%-page  letter  which  you  said 
was  your  copy  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  refuse  to  tell  that. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  On  what  ground  do  you  refuse  to  tell  it  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  will  not  reveal  the  source  of  information. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  am  asking  you,  sir,  on  what  grounds  you  refuse  to 
answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Winchell.  On  the  grounds  I  just  gave  you,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Unless  I  am  mistaken,  Mr.  Winchell,  you  have  not 
given  me  any  grounds.  You  said  you  refused  to  answer  the  question. 
Now,  I  am  asking  you,  on  what  grounds  do  you  refuse  to  answer  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  would  not  reveal  my  source  of  information  on  any 
news. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  had  a  meeting  about  an  hour  ago  with  Senator 
Watkins,  Judge  Chaclwick,  and  myself ;  did  you  not,  Mr.  Winchell  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  made  certain  statements  to  us  at  tliat  meeting; 
did  you  not? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  did. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Are  you  shifting  your  position  in  any  way  from  what 
you  told  us  then,  to  what  you  are  telling  us  now  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  No.  I  know  that  I  will  say  what  I  said  to  you  down- 
stairs, at  the  finish,  tliat  I  would  not  reveal  my  source  of  information, 
even  if  I  knew  it. 


148  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Tlie  Chairman.  Well,  are  you  not  just  laboring  the  point  a  little,  or 
do  you  actually  know  wlio  delivered  it  to  you? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  beg  pardon  ? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  wdio  delivered  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  do  not  know.    I  am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  said  that  before,  it  would  have  saved  a 
lot  of  difficulty. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  thought  I  would  expedite  things,  sir,  and  get  to 
the  point. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  was  the  way  to  get  to  the  point,  if  you 
did  not  know  it,  if  you  do  not  know  the  person  who  gave  it  to  you ;  and 
that  is  what  I  understood  you  to  tell  us  at  the  interview. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  your  answer  correct,  that  you  are  not  certain 
who  gave  you  the  copy  ?    Is  that  what  you  said,  sir  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  DE  FtJRiA.  Do  you  have  any  knowledge  about  who  gave  you  the 
copy  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No,  as  I  indicated  to  you  and  Senator  Watkins 
downstairs. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  prefer  that  you  answer,  up  here,  if  you  will. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Well,  as  I  explained  to  you  gentlemen,  I  have  re- 
ceived considerable  assistance  from  various  people  in  this  room,  par- 
ticularly newspaper  people,  some  of  them  men  I  have  not  met  before. 
"Wlien  they  heard  that  I  was  covering  the  caucus  room  for  any  high- 
lights and  sidelights,  not  the  usual  curiosity,  several  of  these  men 
offered  their  memos  to  me.     They  did  that  outside,  during  the  recess. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  So  I  am  fair  to  you,  sir;  are  you  now  withdrawing 
your  refusal  to  answer  tlie  question  that  I  propounded  to  you? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  If  I  knew,  counsel,  I  would  not  tell  you.  That  is 
what  I  said  to  Senator  Watkins  before;  and  I  thought  I  would  get 
right  to  the  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  of  course,  I  say  the  statement  is  unnecessary, 
because  you  told  us  you  do  not  know;  and  you  now  say  you  do  not 
know  who  gave  it  to  you. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  idea  who  it  was  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  said,  in  your  office,  about  an  hour  ago 

The  Chairman.  You  are  answering,  now.    Forget 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  am  not  sure.  Senator.  There  are  so  many  people 
offering  material  to  me ;  and  I  believe  I  told  you  all  that  I  was  engaged 
in  a  conversation,  or  listening  to  other  people  talk,  directly  outside  this 
room,  and  accepting  offers  from  various  people  in  the  form  of  memos 
— they  were  planning  to  write  the  business — to  let  them  place  in  my 
hand,  sometimes  just  with  the  acknowledgement  "thank  you  very 
much,"  lacking  time  to  continue  with  the  conversation  I  put  them  into 
my  pocket  before  readhig  them. 

The  Chairman.  As  I  understand,  you  say  now  you  cannot — you  do 
not  know  the  person  who  gave  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Not  that  particular  piece  of  paper. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  describe  in  more  detail  just  how  it  was 
handed  to  you — first,  where,  and  then  how  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Outside — I  beg  your  pardon,  sir? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  149 

The  ChatrmajSt.  Yes. 

Mr.  AYiNCHELL.  Outside  this  room,  right  near  the  door,  to  the  right 
of  the  door — my  right — I  remember  talking  to  2  or  3  men.  They  were 
reporters.  Various  people  passing  by  handed  me  little  memos,  not 
necessarily  news.  Some  of  them  were  messages  of  a  personal  nature ; 
and  I  do  recall  getting  what  I  believe  to  be  this  214-page  document 
somewhere.    It  Avas  folded. 

The  Chairmax.  Somebody  handed  it  to  you  while  you  were  there  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Somebody  did,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  a  full  view  of  the  person  who  handed 
it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No,  I  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  And,  as  of  now,  you  do  not  know  who  actually  gave 
it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  said  "Yes."  I  thought  you  meant — just 
so  I  understand  you,  Mr.  Winchell. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  be  sure  whether  I  have  given  you  a  repe- 
tition of  the  actual  language  I  was  developing,  and  I  did  not  consider 
that  that  question  had  been  raised ;  because  I  thought  you  misunder- 
stood. I  thought  you  always  had  said  to  us  you  did  not  know  who 
gave  it  to  you ;  and  therefore,  of  course,  you  could  not  say. 

Mr.  WiNCPiELL.  I  could  not  swear  that  I  did  know. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  is  what  you  are  telling  us,  today.  You 
are  testifying  to  that. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  de  Furia. 

INIr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Winchell,  do  I  understand  you  to  state  now, 
under  oath,  you  do  not  know  who  gave  you  your  copy  of  that  214- 
page  letter? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  de  Furia.  Was  he  in  uniform  or  in  civies  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  believe  he  was  in  civilian  clothes. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  A  man  or  a  woman  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Male. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Wliite  or  colored  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  White. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  About  how  old,  Mr.  Winchell  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  really  don't  know. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Was  he  a  member  of  Senator  McCarthy's  staff? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Are  you  sure  about  it? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I'm  not  sure. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Did  you  know  all  the  members  of  Senator  McCarthy's 
staff? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Many  of  them. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  You  knew  Mr.  Carr  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Juliana  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  And  Mr.  Surine  ? 


150  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr,  WiNCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  it  any  of  those? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.   No. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Of  course,  it  was  not  Senator  McCarthy  who  handed 
it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.   No. 

Mr,  DE  FuRiA.  Now,  were  you  seated  or  standing  when  it  was 
handed  to  you  ? 

Mr,  WiNCHELL.  Standing. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  To  whom  were  you  talking  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  beheve  reporters. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Do  you  know  some  of  the  reporters?  Can  you 
identify  them,  Mr.  Winchell  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  know  nearly  all  of  them  in  this  room,  or  in  the 
room  at  the  time,  but  I'm  not  sure  who  these  reporters  were.  It 
might  have  been  Mr,  Spivak  of  International  News,  It  might  have 
been  Jerry  Greene  or  Jim  Patterson  of  the  New  York  Daily  News — 
several  of  them — Mr,  Kempton  of  the  New  York  Post. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  How  soon 

Mr.  WiNCHELL,  I'm  not  sure  any  of  these  names  I  mentioned  were 
the  ones  I  was  talking  to  at  the  time, 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  How  soon  after  you  received  that  paper,  Mr.  Win- 
chell, did  you  examine  it? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Shortly  after,  when  I  sat  back  at  the  press  table. 

Mr,  DE  FuRiA.  Now,  I  take  it,  sir,  you  heard  the  description  of  the 
214-page  letter  as  it  developed  during  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  That  committee  went  into  a  long  description  of  it, 
comparisons.  Now,  did  the  copy  that  you  had  in  your  possession — did 
it,  or  didn't  it  compare  with  the  S^/^-page  document  as  it  was  described 
in  those  hearings  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  believe  the  letter  that  I  had  was  the  same. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  not  quite  an  answer  to  the  question.  Did 
it  compare  ? 

Mr,  WiNCHELL.  Oh,  I  do  not  know,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  from  what  you  heard 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  didn't  see  the  letter. 

The  Chairman.  I  realize  that,  but  he  had  already  told  you,  de- 
scribed in  some  detail,  the  remarks  on  it,  personal  and  confidential, 
and  all  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Right. 

The  Chairman.  Did  this  compare? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  believe  it  was  the  same  letter. 

The  Chairman.  But  still  you  do  not  answer  the  question.  Were  the 
same,  substantial  markings  on  this  letter  and  the  date  on  this  letter 
you  heard  mentioned 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  It  was  signed,  I  believe,  by  John — J.  E.  Hoover — 
containing  a  list  of  names  of  enemy  suspects. 

Mr,  DE  FuRiA.  Mr,  Winchell,  in  your  column  didn't  you  state  this : 

The  letter  to  General  Boiling,  about  Reds  and  pro-Commies  at  New  Jersey 
Government  radar  places,  which  is  being  argued  about,  is  in  this  columnist's  pos- 
session, too. 

Mr,  WiNCHELL.  I  replied  I  believe  it  is  the  same. 
Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Well,  is  there  any  doubt  about  it,  sir  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  151 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  have  no  doubt. 

Mr.  DE  Fdria.  Then  your  testimony  is  that  the  copy  you  had,  so  far 
as  you  know,  was  the  same ;  is  that  correct,  sir? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Oh,  I  really  believe  it  was  a  copy  of  the  evidence 
offered  here. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  knew  it  was  a  classified  document,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  HE  FuRiA.  And  did  you  retain  that  document  in  your  possession  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  How  long  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  About  a  week  and  a  half. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  show  it  to  anyone,  Mr.  Winchell? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No  one. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  No  one  at  all  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Nobody  saw  the  text. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  show  any  part  to  anyone? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  When  I  took  it  out  of  my  pocket,  with  other  papers, 
to  look  at  what  I  had  collected  during  that  recess,  I  believe  I  said 
to  the  men  sitting  near  me  at  the  press  table,  about  here,  "Gee,  look 
what  I  have." 

Mr.  DE  FuRL\.  Wliat  did  you  do  with  your  copy  of  the  2i/4-page 
letter? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL,  I  contacted  John  E.  Hoover  at  once  about  it,  or  as 
soon  as  I  could  get  to  a  telephone. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr,  Winchell  has  told  us  about  some 
conversations  he  had  with  Mr.  Hoover,  but  as  I  understand  the  rules 
of  evidence,  I  am  not  permitted  to  develop  that  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  say  this:  Since  the  question  has  arisen  as  to 
whether  or  not  it  was  a  copy — as  I  recall  the  testimony  that  has  been 
introduced  heretofore — it  has  been  that  the  exhibit  was  bsfore  the 
Army-McCarthy  hearings,  was  taken  to  Mr.  Hoover  and  he  saw 
that.  I  think  maybe  we  can  pursue  this  a  little  further  with  Mr. 
Winchell  on  the  question  of  whether  he  did  consult  Mr.  Hoover  about 
this  letter,  purely  on  that  basis,  not  for  any  other  purpose,  to  see 
whether  or  not  it  is  the  same  letter. 

Mr,  Williams.  1  think  if  Mr,  Winchell  is  going  to  say  what  Mr. 
Hoover  said,  of  course,  his  testimony  would  be  objectionable.  We 
tliink  Mr.  Hoover  should  be  called,  under  the  rules  of  this  committee. 

Tlie  Chairman,  Well,  Mr,  Hoover's  testimony  probably  would  not 
be  direct  evidence  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  identify  what  Mr. 
Winchell  sliowed  him. 

Mr.  Williams,  I  don't  think  INIr,  Winchell  is  competent  to  tell  this 
committee  what  Mr,  Hoover  has  said  about  this  letter.  I  think  only 
Mr,  Hoover  is  competent  under  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  com- 
mittee that  hearsay  evidence  would  be  rejected. 

The  Chairman,  As  I  remember,  in  the  other  hearing,  and  it  is  also 
in  this  record,  Mr,  Hoover  did  not  appear  there.  He  was  allowed 
to  identify  the  letter  and  a  messenger  was  sent  out. 

Mr.  Williams,  That  committee,  sir,  did  not  purport  to  be  operating 
under  the  rules  of  evidence,  though. 

The  Chairman,  I  realize  that.  Of  course,  if  you  do  not  Avant  this 
in  the  record — I  say  I  think  it  is  favorable  to  you,  and  we  felt  duty 
bound  to  present  it. 


152  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  charge  has  been  made  that  Senator  McCarthy  had  permitted 
this  document  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  an  unauthorized  person,  to 
wit,  a  gossip  columnist,  and  we  wanted  to  get  all  the  evidence  on 
this  point,  and,  while  I  recognize  it  is  remote,  if  you  want  to  object^ 
I  suppose  you  can,  and  I  am  going  to  rule  on  it.     It  is  up  to  you. 

Mr.  Williams.  Well,  I  haven't  heard  a  pending  question.  I  don't 
know  what  Mr.  de  Furia  is  seeking  now. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  May  I  have  a  moment,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  On  the  objection  to  the  questioning  by  counsel,  as- 
far  as  Senator  McCarthy  is  concerned,  we  will  withhold  any  further 
questioning  on  this  line. 

You  may  proceed,  Mr.  de  Furia,  on  another  phase  of  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Winchell,  what  did  you  do  with  the  two-and-a- 
quarter  page  copy  which  you  had  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  destroyed  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  When  did  you  destroy  it,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  About  8  to  10  days  after  I  had  possession  of  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Where  did  you  destroy  it  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  In  a  hotel. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Where? 

Mr.  Winchell.  In  the  bath  room  of  the  Shoreham  Hotel. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Which  hotel? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Shoreham. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Here  in  Washington,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  And  how  did  you  destroy  it  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  burned  it ;  flushed  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  that? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  burned  it  and  flushed  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  you  burned  it,  or  flushed  it  ?  Wliich  did 
you  do  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  And — I  burned  it  and  flushed  it.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  That  makes  quite  a  difference. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  it  does. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy at  any  time  with  reference  to  that  two-and-a-quarter  page 
letter  after  you  received  your  copy  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  don't  recall  having  any  conversation  with  the 
Senator  about  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Does  that  mean  you  may  or  may  not  have  had? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I'm  pretty  sure  I  didn't. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  You  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I'm  pretty  sure  I  didn't. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  All  right. 

Were  any  copies  made  of  that  two-and-a-quarter-page  letter  from 
your  copy? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Not  from  my  copy ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Are  you  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I'm  positive.    Nobody  saw  it  but  me. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  And  it  was  in  your  exclusive  possession  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  In  my  possession.  I  didn't  even  show  it  to  Mr. 
Hoover.    I  just  told  him  I  had  it. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Are  you  sure  about  that,  that  you  didn^t  show  it  to 
Mr.  Hoover  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  153 

Mr.  WiNCHELL,  I  think  I  took  it  out  of  my  pocket  and  said,  "I  have 
that  letter,  John." 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Then  you  may  have  shown  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Well,  that  way,  without  showing,  revealing  the  text. 

Mr.  DE  FuRLv.  Now,  I  ask  you  again :  Are  you  sure  that  you  didn't 
show  it  to  Mr.  Hoover  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I'm  pretty  sure  I  did  not  show  it  to  Mr.  Hoover. 

Mr.  DE  FuEiA.  All  right,  but  to  be  fair  with  you,  3  ou  may  have  and 
don't  remember ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  don't  recall  doing  that,  counselor. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question :  Didn't  you  go  to  Mr. 
Hoover  to  see  whether  or  not  it  was  proper  for  you  to  use  it  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  told  you  it  wasn't  proper  to  use  it  ? 

Mr.  AViNCHELL.  I  said,  "John,  I  have  a  copy" 

The  Chairman.  No. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  "Of  that  letter." 

The  Chairman.  I  am  only  asking  that  one  question.  You  v/ent 
there  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  whether  you  could  use  it  or  not, 
whether  it  was  classified  or  not ;  isn't  that  the  fact? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  guess  you  are  right  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  And  after  you  talked  with  him,  you  didn't  use  it? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL,  Yes,  sir;  I  did  not  use  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  could  he  determine  whether  it  was  a  copy  or 
not  and  classified  confidential  unless  you  had  shown  it  to  him? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

The  Chairman.  I  sa}-,  How  could  he  determine  and  see  that  it  was 
classified  without  seeing  it,  without  you  showing  it  to  him? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  May  I,  Senator,  tell  you  what  the  conversation 
was? 

The  Chairman.  No;  we  can't.  Counsel  objected.  I  think  it  was 
in  their  favor,  but  they  objected.  So  I  am  not  going  to  let  you  tell 
that  conversation. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  They  published  the  conversation.  That  is  a  matter 
of  public  record. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  don't  have  any  objection  to  this,  if  you  want  to 
pursue  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    You  tell  us  what  Mr.  Hoover  told  you. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  said,  "John,  I  hav.e  a  copy  of  that  letter." 

I  assumed  he  knew  what  I  was  talking  about,  because  it  had  been 
on  the  television  and  radio,  in  the  papers,  all  afternoon.  His  name 
had  been  bandied  about  considerabl}^,  and  that  letter. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  it  known  that  you  had  it  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  said,  "I  have  a  copy  of  that  letter,  John.  I  want 
to  ask  you  something." 

I  said,  "Would  you  arrest  me  if  I  published  it?" 

He  said,  "Yes." 

I  said,  "You're  kidding,  John." 

He  said,  "No ;  I  am  not." 

That  was  the  end  of  the  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  did  not  let  him 
see  the  letter  to  be  sure  that  it  was  the  same  one,  did  you  ? 


154  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  WiNCMELL.  I  could  not  swear  that  I  showed  him  the  letter.  I 
wish  I  could  tell  you  I  had.  I  cannot  recall  doing  that.  I  am  trying 
to  recapture  the  scene  at  the  table  in  the  restaurant. 

The  CiTAiRMAisr.  Do  you  think  Mr.  Hoover  would  take  it  for  granted 
that  you  had  a  copy  of  that  letter  without  looking  at  it? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Would  he  take  it  for  granted  ? 

The  Chairman.  Without  looking  at  it. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  believed  that  I  had  it 
or  not.  He  answered  mv  question  because  I  asked  him  if  he  would 
arrest  me,  and  he  said,  "Yes." 

The  Chairman.  That  was  based  on  the  fact  that  it  was  a  classified 
document  and  you  had  a  copy  of  a  classified  document,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  I  have. 

Senator  Ervin.    Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.    Senator  Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  want  to  be  certain  I  understood  the  testimony 
with  reference  to  the  receipt  of  this  document. 

Do  you  swear  that  you  are  certain  that  you  do  not  know  who  handed 
you  this  document? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    That  is  right,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.    That  is  all  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.    Mr.  de  Furia. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Mr.  Winchell,  Senator  McCarthy  had  a  copy  of  the 
two-and-one-quarter  page  letter,  as  I  understand  it,  and  you  had 
one  also.  Is  tliat  right?  Do  you  know  of  any  other  copies  in  exist- 
ence, of  your  own  knowledge  ? 

The  Chairman.    Out  of  your  own  knowledge,  now,  remember. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    I  do  not  remember. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Did  you  see  any  others  while  you  were  here,  or 
since  that  time  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.     No. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  Of  your  own  knowledge,  you  do  not  know  that  any 
other  than  the  two  letters  were  in  existence?    Is  that  correct,  sir? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  is  correct.  I  had  heard  that  there  were  35 
distributed  to  the  other  newspaper  people. 

Mr.  DE  Furia.  That  is  what  we  lawyers  call  hearsay  so  far  as  you 
are  concerned. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  told  you  that  before,  and  I  offer  it  again  for 
background. 

The  Chairman.  Do  any  other  members  of  the  committee  wish  to 
ask  any  questions  ? 

Mr.  Williams,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Winchell,  just  so  that  we  can  understand 
your  testimony,  as  I  understand  you,  you  were  dowm  here  covering 
the  so-called  Army-McCarthy  hearings  in  May  of  1954. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    Yes,  I  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  on  May  4,  1954,  while  you  were  seated  out 
here  covering  the  hearings,  there  was  reference  made  by  Senator 
McCarthy  to  a  letter  which  purj^ortedly  bore  the  typed  name  of 
J.  Edgar  Hoover  as  tlie  sender ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    Yes,  sir. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  155 

Mr.  Williams.  And  that  letter,  you  recall,  do  you  not,  Mr. 
Wincliell,  was  passed  on  May  4,  1954,  by  Senator  McCarthy  up  to 
Ray  Jenkins,  counsel  for  the  committee? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.    That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Ray  Jenkins  retained  possession  of  that  letter 
for  a  time  and  thereafter,  you  recall,  do  you  not,  Mr.  Winchell,  that 
he  returned  it  to  Senator  McCarthy  ? 

jMr.  Winchell.  Yes,  and  I  believe  it  was  received  and  unread 
and  unopened  by  anyone  on  that  committee. 

Mr.  Williams.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  at  no  time  during  the  hear- 
ings while  you  were  present  were  the  contents  of  that  letter  made 
known  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  know  of  no  one  at  any  time  revealing  the  con- 
tents. 

]Mr.  Williams.  So  that  as  a  newspaperman  sitting  at  the  table 
covering  the  hearings,  you  were  in  precisely  the  same  position  as 
everybody  else  in  the  room  except  Senator  McCarthy  and  Kay 
Jenkins  ?  You  did  not  know  what  was  in  that  memorandum  or  that 
letter. 

Mr.  Winchell.    I  eventually  read  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  read  the  document,  Mr.  Winchell? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Oh,  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  meant  to  say  that  I  read 
the  copy  I  had.  I  did  not  see  the  purported  original  or  whatever  it 
was  up  there. 

Mr.  Williams.  At  no  time  during  the  hearings  were  the  contents 
of  that  document  made  known. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Would  you  please  repeat  that  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  At  no  time  during  the  hearings  were  the  contents 
of  that  document  made  known. 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  do  not  believe  so. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  only  thing  that  was  disclosed  about  that  docu- 
ment was  that  it  was  a  docimient  which  purported  to  be  from  J.  Edgar 
Hoover  to  General  Boiling,  and  that  it  was  a  memorandum  on  3  pages ; 
is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  as  I  understand  your  testimony,  thereafter 
you  received  a  copy,  or  you  rec;eived  a  document  from  someone  whose 
identity  you  do  not  know,  and  that  that  document  also  was  a  document 
which  bore  the  name  J.  Edgar  Hoover  as  sender  and,  as  recipient, 
General  Boiling. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Tliat  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  apart  from  that  point  of  similarity,  you  know; 
of  no  other  similarity  between  what  you  had  and  what  was  referred  to 
in  the  record  of  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  that  you  are  unable  to  say  here  under  oath,  in 
response  to  Mr.  de  Furia's  questioning,  you  are  unable  to  say  under 
oath  that  you  ever  had  in  your  possession  a  true  copy  of  the  document 
just  discussed  at  such  gi-eat  length  of  3  days  during  the  Mundt  inquiry, 
are  you  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  No. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  you  said  in  response  to  Mr.  de  Furia's  question 
that  Senator  McCarthy  did  not  give  you  what  you  had  in  the  way  of 
a  memorandum.    Let  us  call  what  you  had  the  Winchell  document 

52461—34 11 


156  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

and  let  lis  call  the  one  at  issue  in  this  hearing  the  hearing  document  or 
the  Mundt  document,  the  Mundt-Jenkins-Army  document. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Counsel,  as  I  testified,  I  did  not  take  a  very  good 
look  at  this  person,  although  I  knew  it  was  a  male,  but  I  am  sure  that 
if  you  contacted  the  people  to  whom  I  showed  this  copy,  that  they 
might  be  helpful.    I  don't  know.    I  mean  at  the  press  table. 

Mr.  Williams.  They  might  be  helpful  ? 

Mr.  WiNCiiELL.  Or  any  one  of  the  other  reporters,  ladies  of  the  press 
who  might  have  seen  people  or  a  person  passing  things  to  me,  to  certify 
to  me  that  it  was  or  it  was  not  Senator  McCarthy.    I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Williams.  But  you  have  testified  in  response  to  a  question  that 
it  was  not  Senator  McCarthy  who  gave  you  this  document. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  am  pretty  sure  that  it  was  not  Senator  McCarthy. 
I  am  pretty  sure  that  if  Senator  McCarthy  approached  me  and  handed 
me  something,  I  am  pretty  sure  somebody  would  have  seen  that. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  likewise,  to  the  best  of  j^our  recollection  and  to 
the  best  of  your  knowledge,  it  was  not  a  member  of  his  staff? 

Mr,  AViNCHELL.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now  that  we  have  established,  Mr.  Winchell,  No.  1', 
that  this  document  to  which  you  have  made  reference  here  today 
and  to  which  Mr.  de  Furia  has  made  reference  cannot  be  shown 
to  have  been  a  copy  of  the  document  that  is  germane  to  this  inquiry, 
and  to  the  best  of  your  recollection  you  did  not  get  it  from  Senator 
McCarthy  or  any  of  his  staff,  let  me  ask  you  this:  The  fact  of  the 
matter  is  that  you  did  not  ever  show  your,  what  I  call  the  Winchell 
document  to  John  Edgar  Hoover  and  say,  "Look  this  over,  John,  and 
let  me  know  if  I  can  use  it,"  did  you? 

Mr.  Winchell.  No,  I  did  not. 

INIr.  Williams.  In  other  words,  you  simply  said  to  John  Edgar 
Hoover,  "John,  I  have  a  copy  of  that  'hot  document,'  as  Ray  Jenkins 
'ised  to  call  it,  and  is  it  all  right  if  I  publish  it."     Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Will  you  arrest  me  if  I  publish  it,  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  "Would  you  arrest  me?". 

So  that  when  you  said  that  to  Mr.  Hoover,  Mr.  Hoover's  answer 
was  directed  to  whether  or  not  you  could  publish  the  document  about 
which  there  was  so  much  discussion  and  so  much  discussion  had  been 
held  in  the  Army-McCarthy  hearings,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  he  did  not  look  at  what  you  had  in  your  hand  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  No,  he  accepted  my  question.  He  simply  said, 
"Yes,  I  will  arrest  you." 

Mr.  Williams.  He  simply  said,  "Yes,  I  will  arrest  you,"  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  even  your  so-called, 
what  we  will  call  the  Winchell  document  did  not  have  security  in- 
formation in  it,  did  it,  Mr.  Winchell? 

Mr.  Winchell.  In  my  opinion  it  was  not  security  information. 

Mr.  Williams.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Winchell,  what  you  had  in 
your  possession  clearly  indicated  such  portions  as  could  have  been 
security  matters  had  been  removed,  did  it  not? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  believe  so. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  157 

Mr.  WiT.LiAMS.  So  tlicat  yon  simply  had — the  Winchell  document — 
was  simply  in  the  form  of  a  letter  from  which  had  been  removed  those 
things  which  might  affect  in  any  way  security  measures? 

Mr.  WiN^CHELL.  I  believe  that  is  true. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

The  CuMRMAiSr.  Since  you  have  made  those  statements,  I  wish  you 
would  tell  us,  and  tell  the  committee  just  why  you  did  believe,  and 
why  you  said  that  it  was  a  copy  of  the  two-and-a-fourth  page  letter 
that  had  been  classified  as  a  security  document.  Give  us  your  reason. 
We  would  like  to  know  why  you  said  it  in  your  publication. 

Mr.  Winchell.  From  hearing  the  charges  and  explanations  across 
the  table  at  which  you  are  sitting  now.  Senator,  I  have  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  what  I  had  was  not  an  exact  copy  of  what  had  been  pre- 
sented to  the  Senate  committee. 

The  Chairman.  You  remember  you  told  me  something  about  having 
"Personal  and  Confidential"  about  the  top  of  the  letter  that  you  had? 

Mr.  Winchell.  That  I  had  what,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  That  it  was  written  in  red  across  the  top  of  it, 
"Personal  and  Confidential." 

Mr.  Winchell.  "Persojial  and  Confidential,"  and  John  Edgar 
Hoover's  signature,  I  think. 

The  Chairman.  Signature? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Typewritten. 

The  Chairman.  Typewritten? 

Mr.  Winchell.  This  was  the  copy. 

Incidentally,  Senator,  I  just  recall  some  of  the  people  to  whom  I 
had  revealed  this  part  [indicating]  in  opening  it  up  that  much,  just 
the  top,  and  the  huge  letters  "C-o-p-y"  in  red  and  perhaps  a  line  at 
the  top  to  the  left,  "Personal  and  Confidential,"  and  perhaps  the 
date  over  here. 

I  think  that  Mr.  Green  of  the  New  York  Daily  News,  who  was 
sitting  on  my  right,  he  may  have  seen  it.  He  was  closest  to  me.  I 
don't  know  whether  I  showed  it  to  Mr.  Spivak  of  International  News, 
or  to  Miss  McKee,  also  of  International  News  Service,  but  they  might 
corroborate  that  I  did  have  what  I  believed  to  be  a  copy  of  what 
was  in  evidence  here. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  given  us  now  all  the  reasons  why  you 
thought  you  were  right  in  saying  it  was  a  copy  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  was  trying  to. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  so  sincere  about  it  that  you  published  it 
in  your  column  without  equivocation  or  ifs  and  ancls? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  believed  that  it  was  a  true  copy. 

The  Chairman.  I  see. 

We  just  wanted  to  be  sure  that  you  had  given  the  committee  all 
your  reasons  for  believing  it  was.  We  wanted  to  clear  up  this  inci- 
dent. It  was  one  of  those  matters  charged,  and  we  wanted  to  get  the 
statement  on  it,  and  you  seemed  to  be  the  logical  person  to  make  the 
explanation. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Also,  sir,  I  think  that  during  the  testimony,  it  was 
either  Mr.  Cohn  or  somebody  else  testifying,  that  he  named  one 
name  in  this  list  of  suspects.  He  described  this  name  as  one  who  had 
already  appeared  in  the  headlines  in  the  role  of  a  Communist  agent, 
and  that  the  others  had  never  been  known  before,  and  this  coincided 
with  the  copy  I  had. 


158  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  avouIcI  like  to  have  the  names  of 
the  newspapermen  or  newspaperwomen  who  may  have  seen  Mr. 
Wincliell's  copy.    You  said  Mr.  Green  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Counsel,  I  did  not  show  the  text  to  anyone. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  understand,  sir. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  just  opened  it  up  like  that  [indicating]  and  he 
probably  took  a  look  out  of  the  corner  of  his  eye  and  went  on  about 
his  business.    I  don't  knoAv.    I  didn't  turn  around. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  missed  1  or  perhaps  2  names.    Mr.  Green 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Jerry  Green,  of  the  New  York  News,  was  on  my 
right.    In  front  of  me,  to  my  right,  Jimmy  Patterson. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  James? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  James  Patterson,  of  the  New  York  News,  and 
Jerry  Green,  of  the  same  newspaper. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Jerry  Green? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Jerry  Green,  James  Patterson. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  And  James  Patterson.    You  mentioned  a  Mr.  Spivak. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Spivak  was  seated  2  or  3  from  me;  I  may  have 
turned  it  around  and  said,  "Look."  I  don't  know  that  I  did.  I  think 
I  did. 

Mr.  DE  FtJRiA.  Did  you  say  a  Miss  McKee? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  She  may  have  been  at  the  table  at  the  time.  Some 
of  the  reporters  had  to  get  up  and  leave  and  go  and  file  copy  a  great 
deal  of  the  time. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Now,  sir,  I  have  four  names.    Are  there  any  more? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  offer  those  to  help  you  decide  Avhether  I  had  any- 
thing that  may  have  been  a  copy  of  the  letter  in  controversy  here. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  What  Avas  the  color  of  the  paper  you  had  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  White. 
■    Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  it  copy  paper,  or  regidar  Avhite  paper,  letter 
paper  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  It  Avas — I  don't  knoAv  the  name  of  it.  It  is  a  Avliite, 
very  thin  tissue. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Was  it  legal  cap  size,  or  octa\'o  size  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  It  Avas  this  size  [holding  up  sheet  of  yellow  paper]. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Regular  business  letterhead  size. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.   Yes. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Did  you  see  in  the  audience  here  today  any  person 
Avho  had  another  copy  of  that  letter? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  isn't  clear  to  me.  Counsel. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Do  you  see  among  the  neAvspapermen  or  newspaper- 
Avomen  here  in'  this  room  anyone  Avho  had  another  copy  of  the  214- 
page  letter? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  never  knew  that  any  of  them  had.  I  have  heard 
that  35  copies  had  been  distributed — not.  Counsel,  not  mainly  to  people 
in  this  room,  but  to  heads  of  neAvspaper  services  and  neAvspapers  in 
Washington  and  New  York  City. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Winchell,  the  copy  that  you  had,  Avas  that  a 
mimeographed  copy,  or  Avas  it  a  carbon  copy  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  A  carbon. 

Senator  Case.  And  you  heard  that  there  Avere  some  35  copies  that 
had  been  distributed? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  159 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  had  later  lieard — oh,  a  good  week  or  so  after — 
and  I  liad  already  told  this  to  Senator  Watkins  and  Mr.  Chadwick  and 
the  counsel  in  his  office  earlier  today. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  we  didn't  ask  about  it  was  that  we 
thought  it  was  hearsay. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Well,  mine  was  hearsay,  Senator. 

The  Chairmax.  What  was  that  ?  . 

Mr.  WiNCiiELL.  Mine  was  hearsay. 

The  Chairman.  What  you  are  saying  now  is  hearsay. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  think  I  prefaced  it  by  telling  you  that  the  man 
himself  was  a  notable  publisher  of  a  newspaper. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  need  to  go  into  the  whole  thing.  I 
thought  it  was  hearsay,  and  tliat  is  the  reason  I  didn't  ask  you  about  it. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  see. 

Answering  your  question,  Senator,  this  source  told  me  that  he  had 
heard  that  35  of  the  same,  copies  of  the  same  letter,  had  been 
distributed  in  high  places  or  newspapers. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case,  are  you  through  ? 

Senator  Case.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stennis. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Winchell,  according  to  this  stamp  that  was 
on  this  paper  that  you  testified  about,  you  say  it  was  stamped  "Per- 
sonal and  Confidential"? 

Mr,  Winchell.  Typewritten. 

Senator  Stennis.  Typewritten.  I  got  the  idea  a  while  ago  that  it 
was  a  stamp  that  had  been  impressed  on  there. 

Mr.  Winchell.  It  was  typewritten,  sir. 

Senator  Stennis.  In  the  same  way,  apparently,  as  the  body  of  the 
instrument  was? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Stennis.  And  the  name,  J.  Edgar  Hoover,  was  stamped  or 
typewritten  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  Typewritten. 

Senator  Stennis.  Was  there  any  kind  of  a  marking  on  it  indicat- 
ing a  committee  file  number  or  stamp  or  any  indication  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  am  pretty  sure  not,  sir. 

Senator  Stennis.  This  person  that  handed  this  paper  to  you,  was 
that  someone  that  you  had  then  known,  someone  you  then  knew,  and 
had  forgotten  who  it  was,  or  some  person  you  never  did  know  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  One  I  didn't  take^a  good  look  at.  It  was  handed 
to  me  folded  in  half,  among  the  things  like  that  [showing  folded  piece 
of  paper]  would  be  handed  to  me  if  I  was  busy  talking  to  some- 
one and  somebody  who  didn't  want  to  wait,  and  this  was  handed 
to  me  by  a  male  whose  face  I  didn't  get  a  good  look  at.  I  assume  it 
was  somebody  who  wanted  to  be  helpful  with  some  trivia. 

Senator  Stennis.  Was  it  your  impression,  then,  that  this  party  is 
a  stranger  to  me,  or  was  it  your  impression  that  it  was  just  one  of 
the  boys  around  the  table? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  think  it  was  just  somebody  who  wanted  to  pass 
along 

Senator  Stennis.  Would  you  recognize  that  person  now  if  he  were 
brought  before  you  ? 

Mr.  Winchell.  I  certainly  would,  I  think. 

Senator  Stennis.  You  think  you  would  ? 


160  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  have  g^one  down  tlie  list  of  all  the  people  it  may 
have  been,  and  eliminated;  but  there  were  1  or  2  others  that  I  have 
not  seen. 

Senator  Stennis.  You  would  not  mind  identifying  that  person  if 
he  were  brought  before  you? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  would  like  it  for  my  own  curiosity.  If  I  knew 
the  source,  I  would  not  reveal  it  to  this  committee. 

Senator  Stennis.  I  beg  your  pardon? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  If  I  knew  the  source,  I  would  not  reveal  it  to  this 
committee. 

Senator  Stennis.  You  w^ouldn't  mind  identifying  the  person  if 
the  person  was  brought  before  you  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  could  not  identify  him  publicly ;  I  would  know 
myself  that  that  was  the  one;  I  think  I  would. 

Senator  Stennis.  Does  this  privilege  that  you  claim,  you  think, 
extend  to  a  paper  that  the  I'BI  Director  told  you  that  you  would  be 
subject  to  arrest  for  if  you  published  it? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  That  question  eludes  me. 

Senator  Stennis.  Do  you  think  that  the  privilege  that  you  claim 
extends  to  a  paper  or  a  document  that  you  would  be  arrested  for  if 
you  had  published  it  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Senator,  I  do  not  claim  any  privilege.  I  have  just 
made  a  statement.  I  said  I  would  not  reveal  any  source  of  infor- 
mation. 

Senator  Stennis.  But  you  say  on  your  oath  that  you  do  not  know 
who  this  person  was  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  have  a  question  or  two,  Mr.  Chairman,  please. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Winchell,  the  words  "Personal  and  Confiden- 
tial," were  they  in  red  or  black  ink  on  your  copy  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  The  only  thing  red,  as  I  recall,  was  the  word  "copy." 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Do  I  assume  that  the  words  "Personal  and  Confiden- 
tial" were  in  black  ink  or  dark  blue  or  blue? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA,  Do  you  know  anybody  who  knows  who  is  the  person 
who  handed  you  the  2i/4-page  document? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Do  I  know  anyone  who  knows  the  source  of  any 
information  ? 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No ;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  DE  FuEiA.  Do  you  know  any  way  that  this  committee  can  iden- 
tify the  man  who  gave  you  the  214-page  document? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No ;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Have  you  seen  the  man  who  gave  you  the  214-page 
letter  since  about  May  4,  I  believe,  or  May  6,  whatever  the  date  was, 
between  that  time  and  today ;  have  you  seen  that  person  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  haven't  seen  him  again. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  You  have  not  seen  him  again  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  know  that  he  doesn't  work  for  the  McCarthy  com- 
mittee, because  I  went  over  that  list. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  I  am  not  asking  whether  he  worked  for  the  McCarthy 
committee,  but  have  you  seen  him  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  161 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No ;  I  have  not,  sir. 

Mr.  DE  FuBiA.  Have  you  tried  to  find  out  who  he  was  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  did  when  I  was  covering  the  story  down  here.  I 
kept  looking  around  the  room  nnd  down  the  corridor  and  various 
places  and  seeing  if  I  could  find  the  man  that  I  thought  might  be  one 
of  them  that  would  have  passed  something  to  me. 

There  had  been  several,  as  I  told  you,  and  Senator  Watkins,  in  the 
office,  who  had  been  running  errands  every  day  for  others,  some  people 
around  the  committee  table,  others  among  the  spectators,  who  would 
pass  along  messages  to  me,  and  I  tried  to  recap  the  various  people, 
some  of  the  ladies  who  were  running  errands  for  the  Senate  committee 
at  the  time,  and  I  felt  pretty  sure  that  none  of  these  people  were  the 
ones ;  and  yet  I  did  not  take  a  very  good  look  at  the  person  who  passed 
me  the  j^aper.  It  was  not  the  only  piece  of  paper  that  I  received  in 
the  corridor  at  that  time. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Mr.  Chairman,  they  are  all  the  question  from  the 
committee  counsel,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Winchell,  was  there  a  red  border  on  the  copy 
that  you  had  on  the  cover  page  ? 

Mr.  AViNCHELL.  No,  the  only  thing  red.  Senator,  was  the  word 
"copy"  in  very  huge  letters. 

Senator  Case.  Do  you  recall  whether  or  not  there  was  any  imprint 
on  the  cover  page  which  started  out  with  the  word  "Confidential," 
then  followed  with  any  warning  or  caution  against  the  disclosure  of 
the  contents  of  the  material  within  ? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  I  am  sure,  Senator,  there  was  no  warning  among 
those  lines. 

Senator  Case.  In  other  words 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  It  wosn't  even  marked  "Secret."  It  was  just  called 
"Personal-Confidential,"  just  between  us. 

I  wish  you  all  could  see  this. 

Senator  Case.  On  occasion,  I  have  seen  a  few  confidential  papers. 
They  generally  have  wo.rning  notices  on  them,  frequently  in  red,  with 
red  border.  And  I  am  trying  to  determine  merely  whether  or  not 
what  you  had  was  a  copy  which  had  been  prepared  in  that  manner, 
or  whether  it  was  simply  a  carbon  copy.  This  word  "copy"  that  you 
referred  to,  would  you  judge  that  that  was  the  label  on  the  paper  that 
was  used  just  as  a  second  sheet  might  1be  labeled  "copy"? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  No,  sir;  it  seemed  to  be  stationery  that  was  just 
made  for  copies  and  it  v/as  so  distinctly  marked. 

I  think,  too,  that  it  wasn't  solid :  that  there  were  lines  for  the  C, 
and  two  lines  to  make  an  O,  and  so  on — like  sort  of  a  red  border  for  the 
C,  with  white  space. 

Senator  Case.  Was  the  paper  a  tissue  paper,  such  as  is  used  for 
making  carbon  copies? 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Yes,  what  they  call  fishskin. 

Senator  Case.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  farther  ouestions? 

If  not,  you  will  be  excused,  Mr.  Winchell. 

Mr.  WiNCHELL.  Thank  you,  sir. 


162  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  Thank  you  on  behalf  of  the  committee  counsel,  Mr. 
Winchell. 

The  Chairman.  We  thank  you  for  coming  because  this  matter  had 
to  be  cleared  up  one  way  or  the  other.  We  wanted  to  get  all  the  facts 
we  could  relevant  to  the  matter. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  assume  it  will  be  too  much  to  ask  if  there  are  any 
witnesses  among  the  newspaper  people,  or  others,  who  saw  the  man 
who  delivered  this  letter  to  Mr.  AVinchell.  You  can  volunteer  after 
the  meeting,  if  you  wish  to,  and  let  us  have  your  name  in  order  to  make 
a  complete  record  of  the  event. 

We  would  like  get  someone  wlio  could  identify  the  person  who 
actually  gave  you  that  instrument. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Yes,  sir. 

Am  I  excused  now  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused. 

Mr.  Winchell.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  make  no  formal  motion  at  this  time, 
but  I  think  in  the  interest  of  having  a  wholly  relevant  record,  the 
Chair  might  consider  in  its  wisdom  striking  the  testimony  that  has 
just  been  heard,  for  these  reasons : 

Mr.  Winchell,  under  any  rules  of  evidence,  has  not  identified  the 
document  which  he  had  in  his  possession  with  the  document  which  is 
in  question  in  this  hearing. 

Regardless  of  how  loose  the  rules  of  evidence  may  be,  there  is  no 
identification.  There  is  no  tying  up  of  these  two  documents  as  being 
the  same  or  similar. 

No.  2,  Mr.  Winchell,  in  his  testimony,  has  made  quite  clear  that  his 
recollection  of  the  events,  as  I  understand  his  testimony,  that  neither 
Senator  McCarthy,  nor  anyone  identified  with  him,  gave  this  docu- 
ment to  Mr.  Winchell  so  that  his  testimony  becomes,  insofar  as  the 
issues  in  this  case  are  concerned,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  sincerely  believe, 
very  irrelevant. 

I  do  not  make  any  formal  motion  because  I  think  whether  his  testi- 
mony stands,  or  does  not,  is  a  matter  pretty  much  of  indifference  to  us, 
but  I  think  in  the  interest  of  a  clean  record,  relevant,  germane  testi- 
mony, the  chairman  might  consider  striking  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  admit  that  it  is  not  very  direct  evidence  with 
reference  to  this  document.  When  it  was  before  the  committee  in  the 
first  place,  it  seemed  to  be  rather  illusive,  and  if  the  testimony  that 
Mr.  Winchell  has  given  here  is  somewhat  indefinite  and  value,  it  is 
not  much  more  vague  than  the  situation  was  before  the  committee — 
I  mean  the  Army-McCarthy  committee — and  we  can  give  whatever 
weight  we  think  should  be  attached  to  it. 

But  we  felt,  as  I  said  once  before,  that  since  this  charge  had  been 
made,  it  would  be  our  duty  to  get  all  the  evidence,  no  matter  how  light 
in  weight  it  might  be,  with  respect  to  this  particular  matter. 

We  have  exhausted  every  resource  in  trying  to  discover  whether 
there  was  any  truth  in  that  charge,  or  not,  and  this  is  the  only 
evidence  we  have  been  able  to  find  and  such  as  it  is,  we  have  presented 
it,  and  I  think  it  ought  to  stay  in  the  record  for  whatever  it  is  worth. 

At  this  point,  I  will  state  that  our  counsel  advises  us  that  with  the 
introduction  of  the  testimony  just  now  concluded,  the  testimony  with 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  163 

respect  to  point  3  is,  as  at  present,  completed ;  and  the  staff  has  nothing 
further  to  offer  on  points  1, 2, 4,  and  5. 

However,  at  the  executive  committee  meeting  this  morning,  uncer- 
tainty remained  as  to  what  other  testimony  might  be  taken  this 
afternoon.  It  was  agreed  by  the  committee  that  for  the  convenience 
of  both  counsel  for  the  committee  and  for  Senator  McCarthy,  that  this 
meeting  would  be  recessed  now,  and  that  we  would  convene  tomorrow 
at  10  a.  m.,  at  which  time  Senator  McCarthy  will  go  on  with  his 
presentation. 

The  foregoing  is  subject  to  the  reservation  that  the  committee  may 
reopen  the  hearings  at  any  time,  particularly  as  to  matters  developing 
or  being  developed  at  the  hearings.  In  other  words,  this  is  not  exactly 
as  a  court  trial  where,  when  you  rest,  you  are  through  unless  you  can 
show  some  mistake  or  something  of  that  sort,  but  we  are  interested  in 
getting  all  the  evidence,  no  matter  whom  it  helps  or  hurts  in  this 
matter,  and  if  certain  matters  develop  in  the  hearing,  in  the  presenta- 
tion by  Senator  McCarthy,  whatever  he  is  to  present  under  the  rules 
set  forth,  then  we  don't  want  to  be  precluded  by  anything  we  have  said 
here  from  going  on  further  and  developing  any  new  leads  that  might 
be  shown  to  exist. 

The  committee  will  now  be  in  recess  until  tomorrow  morning  at 
10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  3:  30  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed  until  tomor- 
row, Wednesday,  September  8, 1954,  at  10  a.  m.) 


HEAEINGS  ON  SENATE  EESOLUTION  301 


WEDNESDAY,   SEPTEMBER  8,    1954 

United  States  Senate, 
Select  Committee  To  Study  Censure  Charges  Pursuant 

TO  Senate  Order  on  Senate  Resolution  301, 

Washington^  D.  C. 

The  select  committee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10 :10  a.  m.,  in  the 
caucus  room,  318  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Arthur  V.  Watkins 
(chairman)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Watkins  (chairman),  Johnson  (vice  chairman), 
Carlson,  Case,  Stennis,  and  Ervin. 

Also  present :  Senator  McCarthy ;  E,  Wallace  Chadwick,  counsel  to 
the  committee ;  Guy  G.  de  Furia,  assistant  counsel  to  the  committee ; 
John  M.  Jex,  clerk  of  the  committee;  John  W.  Wellman,  staff  mem- 
ber ;  Frank  Ginsburg  and  Ray  R.  McGuire,  members  of  Senator  Wat- 
kins' staff  on  loan  to  the  committee;  and  Edward  Bennett  Williams, 
counsel  to  Senator  McCarthy,  with  his  associates,  Agnes  A.  Neill  and 
Brent  Bozell. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  in  session. 

We  will  ask  the  photographers  to  desist  in  the  taking  of  pictures. . 

Mr.  Williams,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  JNIr.  Chairman,  will  you  call  Gen.  Kirke  Lawton, 
please  ? 

The  Chairman.  General  Lawton,  will  you  please  come  to  the  stand  ? 

Raise  your  right  hand  and  be  sworn.  Do  you  solemnly  swear  the 
testimony  you  will  give  in  the  matter  now  pending  before  this  com- 
mittee will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
so  help  you  God  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MAJ.  GEN.  KIEKE  B.  LAWTON,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
HIS  COUNSEL,  JOHN  E.  PERNICE 

The  Chairman.  For  the  purpose  of  the  record,  give  us  your  full 
name  and  your  address. 

General  Lawton.  Maj.  Gen.  Kirke  B.  Lawton,  retired;  mailing 
address  care  of  Fort  Monmouth,  N.  J. 

I  would  like  to  introduce  at  this  time  Mr.  John  E.  Pernice — 
P-e-r-n-i-c-e — who  is  the  Chief  of  the  Legal  Division  of  the  Chief 
Signal  Officer  of  the  Army,  who  I  have  asked  to  come  here  this  morn- 
ing with  me  as  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  You  came  here  this  morning  under  subpena  ? 

General  Lawton.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  you  may  direct  the  examination. 

165 


166  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

General,  how  long  were  you  in  the  United  States  Army  prior  to 
your  retirement  ? 

General  Lawton.  Thirty-seven  years,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  When  did  you  retire,  sir  ? 

General  Lawton.  August  31,  1954. 

Mr.  Williams.  What  was  your  last  post  of  command  ? 

General  Lawton.  Fort  Monmouth,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Williams.  When  did  you  take  over  as  commanding  general  of 
that  post  ? 

General  Lawton.  December  19, 1951. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  for  how  long  did  you  fill  the  position  as  Com- 
manding General  of  Fort  Monmouth  ? 

General  Lawton.  Until  March  24,  1954. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  thereafter,  where  were  you  assigned? 

General  Lawton.  Oh,  I  was  on  a  combination  of  hospital,  Walter 
Reed,  and  on  sick  leave,  back  at  Fort  Monmouth. 

Mr.  Williams.  Were  you  Commanding  General  of  Fort  Monmouth 
at  the  time  when  the  Senate  Investigating  Committee  conducted  an 
investigation  there  of  subversion? 

General  Lawton.  I  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  can  you  fix  that  in  point  of  time  ? 

General  Lawton,  October  1953. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  month  of  October  1953  ? 

General  Lawton.  Yes. 

Mr.  Williams,  And  for  how  long  did  that  investigation,  to  your 
knowledge,  continue  ? 

General  Lawton.  Well,  there  were  closed  sessions  at  which  I  at- 
tended some  in  October.  I  attended  no  more.  I  remember  reading 
in  the  press  there  were  more  closed  sessions  and  then  there  were  some 
open  hearings  in  December  of  employees  from  Fort  Monmouth,  I 
would  say,  from  the  press,  December  of  1953.    It  may  have  continued. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  know  Brig.  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker? 

General  Lawton.  I  do, 

Mr.  Williams.  What  w^as  his  post  of  command  in  1953  ? 

General  Lawton.  Camp  Kilmer,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Williams,  Now,  directing  your  attention,  General  Lawton,  to 
December  of  1953,  did  you  have  a  conversation,  sir,  with  Brig,  Gen. 
Ralph  Zwicker  at  Camp  Kilmer  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  fix  the  time  more  definitely  than  that,  Mr. 
Williams? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  will  ask  the  General  to  fix  it  for  us. 

General  Lawton.  I  don't  think  I  can.  It  was,  I  would  say,  late 
November,  early  December.  I  had  occasion  to  go  to  his  post  on  another 
matter,  and  I  was  half  an  hour  early,  I  called  on  him,  as  a  courtesy 
call,  as  a  post  commander,  and  I  think  it  was  the  first  time  I  had 
met  him, 

Mr,  Williams,  And  you  fix  that  in  the  month  of  of  December, 
General  ? 

General  Lawton.  Or  late  November. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  on  that  occasion,  did  you  have  a  conversation 
with  him  regarding  Senator  McCarthy  and  the  work  of  the  Senate 
Permanent  Investigating  Committee  at  Fort  Monmouth? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  167 

General  Lawton.  I  will  have  to  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that 
question  on  the  basis  of  the  Presidential  directive  of  May  17,  1954, 
regulations  based  upon  that  which  prohibits  members  of  the  executive 
department  from  revealing  conversations  between  employees  thereof. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  I  understand,  sir,  that  you  refuse  to  answer  the 
question  which  is  directed  to  the  substance  of  your  conversation  with 
General  Zwicker? 

General  Lawtoist.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  I  understand  you  base  your  refusal  on  the 
order  of  May  17  ? 

General  Lawton.  Yes. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  have  a  copy  of  that  order  with  you.  General  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  haven't;  no. 

Mr.  Williams.  Don't  you  know.  General,  that  order  of  May  17, 
1954,  referred  only  to  the  Government  Operations  Committee  and  the 
hearing  then  in  session  which  was  commonly  known  as  the  Army- 
McCarthy  hearing  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  recall  exactly  what  you  say,  but  I  have  taken 
advice  from  counsel  and  other  sources  and  after  that  counsel,  it  is 
my  belief  that  that  directive  not  only  applied  to  the  so-called  Mundt 
committee  but  it  applies  to  this  or  any  other;  and,  therefore,  I  still 
would  have  to  respectfully  decline. 

Mr.  Williams.  General,  will  you  tell  this  committee,  counsel,  and 
myself,  with  whom  you  talked  about  this  since  Monday  night? 

General  Lawton.  I  will  have  to  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that 
one  on  the  basis  that  the  same  directive — conversations  between  two 
employees  of  the  executive 

The  Chairman.  May  I  interrupt  there  a  moment,  Mr.  Williams? 

Do  you  have  a  copy  of  that  directive? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  know  what  the  directive  says.  I  don't  have  a  copy 
of  it. 

General  Lawton.  My  counsel  has  a  copy  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  see  a  copy,  and  I  think  members  of 
the  committee  would  before  we  rule  on  this  line  of  questioning. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  have  an  extra  copy  of  it  there.  General  ? 

General  Lawton.  No  ;  I  haven't. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator  Watkins,  may  I  look  at  it  with  you  ?  May 
I  look  at  that  directive,  please  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  you  may.  I  will  advise  you,  however,  that 
it  was  placed  in  the  record  yesterday  as  a  part  of  the  statement  of 
our  counsel,  Mr.  Chad  wick,  who  so  advises  me  now.  It  appears  at 
page  359  of  yesterday's  record.  You  are  welcome  to  look  at  it,  here, 
if  you  wish. 

(A  copy  of  the  document  referred  to  was  handed  to  Mr.  Williams.) 

The  Chaiiuman.  Tliere  is  nothing  at  the  moment  requiring  a  ruling 
by  the  Chair,  so  we  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  believe  the  last  question  that  I  directed  to  General 
Lawton  was  whether  or  not  he  was  predicating  his  refusal  to  answer 
on  this  order ;  and  then,  following  that,  when  he  said  "Yes,"  I  asked 
him  if  he  had  had  a  conversation  yesterday  with  anyone  in  the  De- 
partment of  the  Army  on  this  matter.  That  was  the  pending  question, 
I  believe. 

General  Lawton.  I  saw  counsel  for  various  periods  yesterday. 


168  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  You  talked  to  Mr.  Brooker,  the  General  Counsel  of 
the  Department  of  Defense ;  did  you  not  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  will  have  to  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that 
one,  on  the  same  basis. 

Mr.  Williams.  Asa  matter  of  fact,  prior  to  your  conversation  with 
Mr.  Brooker,  you  were  prepared  to  testify  on  this  subject  which  I  am 
now  interrogating  you  on ;  is  not  that  the  fact  ? 

General  Lawton.  The  difference  in  the  status  between  an  active- 
duty  officer  and  a  retired  officer,  I  have  never  been  interested  in  or 
familiar  with.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  there  Avas  some,  or 
there  was  more  leeway  as  a  retired  officer ;  and  it  might  be  that  your 
statement  is  relatively  true.  But,  to  make  sure,  I  never  cross  bridges 
until  I  come  to  them,  and  so,  to  make  sure,  before  I  appeared  here, 
I  did  yesterday  consult  several  counsel  as  to  what  regulations  I  am 
now  operating  under  as  a  retired  officer ;  and  as  a  result  of  those  con- 
ferences with  counsel,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  I  cannot  answer  that 
question. 

Mr.  Williams.  Can  you  tell  us.  General,  this  much :  Is  it  not  the 
fact  that  counsel  with  whom  3'ou  consulted  yesterday  was  Army  coun- 
sel or  Defense  Department  counsel  ? 

General  Lawton.  Yes.    One  of  them  is  right  here. 

Mr.  Williams.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Pernice  is  chief  counsel, 
as  I  understood,  and  the  chief  officer,  the  chief  counsel  for  the  Signal 
Corps.  Now,  General,  do  I  understand  that  you  will  refuse  to  testify 
with  respect  to  any  conversations  that  you  may  have  had  with  Gen- 
eral Zwicker,  on  any  subject,  and  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
subject  at  issue  here  today  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  will  discuss  that.  I  met  him,  and  we  passed  the 
time  of  day  away,  and  followed  ball  games,  perhaps,  and  athletics  and 
things  like  that.  But  the  official  answer  is,  I  must  respectfully  de- 
cline to  answer. 

Mr.  Williams.  You  did  tell  me  the  substance  of  your  conversation 
with  General  Zwicker,  Monday  night,  did  you  not  ? 

General  Lawton.  I  did  discuss  the  conversation  with  you;  yes. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  you  told  me  the  substance  of  it? 

General  Lawton.  Yes. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  this,  sir?  Here  I 
think  we  have  a  very,  very  cogent  illustration  of  what  this  case  is  all 
about.  We  have  a  witness  here  on  the  stand  who  has  information  that 
is  relevant  and  germane  to  tliis  inqur}'';  and  I,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
outlined  to  the  committee,  in  executive  session,  in  a  very  cursory  way, 
what  that  evidence  was,  on  yesterday;  and  now  we  find  the  Depart- 
ment of  Defense  gagging  this  witness  on  the  basis,  I  say,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, of  altogether  incompetent  advice.  It  is  either  incompetent  ad- 
vice, or  it  is  not  even  in  good  taste,  because  General  Lawton — and  I 
mean  no  criticism  whatsoever  of  him,  and  I  do  not  want  my  remarks 
to  be  construed  that  way,  because  I  have  the  highest  respect  for  him — I 
say  that  to  the  full  committee — but  General  Lawton  is  obviously  act- 
ing under  orders,  and  those  orders  are  either  so  predicated  or  in- 
competent, that  is,  or  advice  that  is  not  given  in  good  faith,  because 
his  attention  is  directed  to  an  Executive  order  of  May  17,  1954 ;  and 
he  is  told  that  he  may  not  testify  on  this  inquiry,  on  the  basis  of  that 
order. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  169 

The  order  says — and  it  is  signed  by  the  President,  sent  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  Defense — 

You  will  instruct  employees  of  your  Department  that  in  all  of  their  appear- 
ances before  the  subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Government  Opera- 
tions regarding  the  inquiry  now  before  it,  they  are  not  to  testify  to  any  such 
conversations  or  communications  or  to  produce  any  such  documents  or  repro- 
ductions. 

I  quote  it  exactly.  In  other  words,  an  order  which  counsel  for  the 
Army  has  told  General  Lawton  binds  him,  is  an  order  which  relates 
only  to  the  Government  Operations  Committee,  in  the  ino.uiry  pend- 
ing as  of  May  17,  1954,  which  was  the  inquiry  regarding  Secretary 
Stevens,  Senator  McCarthy,  and  others ;  and  this  order  has  no  appli- 
cability, no  relationship  in  the  world  to  the  inquiry  which  is  presently 

pending.    Furthermore 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  Williams.  I  would  like  to  say  this,  if  I  may- 


The  Chairman.  Senator  Case,  will  you  wait  a  minute,  until  Mr. 
Williams  has  finished? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  may  say  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  will  be 
through.  The  information  that  I  seek  to  elicit  from  General  Lawton 
has  no  more  relationship  to  national  security  or  national  defense  than 
the  price  of  yogurt.  It  is  totally,  totally  irrelevant  to  any  questions 
of  security  or  defense ;  and  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  such  a  conversation 
could  be  blocked  from  this  inquiry. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman • 

Mr.  Williams.  And  I  say  this :  I  have  no  criticism  whatsoever,  and 
I  do  not  want  my  remark  to  be  construed  as  such ;  rather  it  is  directed 
at  the  persons  who,  I  say,  gave  him  this  wholly  incompetent  advice. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  just  one  inquiry  I  want  to  make  of  him, 
Mr.  Williams.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  he  received  an  order 
from  the  Defense  Department,  or  from  Defense  officials,  who  have  not 
testified.  Of  course,  what  he  said,  as  I  recall  it — and  I  think  the  record 
will  show  that  I  am  right — was  that  he  sought  advice,  and,  on  the 
advice  of  counsel,  he  declines  to  answer,  because  he  thinks  it  would 
be  a  violation  of  that  order. 

Mr.  Williams.  Is  the  Chair  ruling  that 

The  Chairman.  I  have  not  ruled  yet.  Senator  Case  wished  to  be 
heard.  I  wanted  to  let  you  finish,  first,  and  then  I  wanted  to  call  that 
to  your  attention.    And,  now,  I  will  recognize  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  note  that  counsel  said  that  he  was 
giving  an  exact  reproduction  of  the  passage  from  the  letter  of  the 
President.    I  will  ask  counsel  if  he  read  the  entire  sentence. 

Mr.  Williams.  Are  you  directing  your  attention  to  me  ? 

Senator  Case.  I  am. 

Mr.  Williams.  No;  I  did  not.  I  did  not  read  the  entire  sentence, 
but  I  shall  be  glad  to. 

Senator  Case.  Will  you  read  the  entire  sentence? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir ;  I  shall  be  very  happy  to  do  so.    I  read : 

Because  it  is  essential  to  (fficient  and  effective  administration  that  employees 
of  the  executive  branch  be  in  a  position  to  be  completely  candid  in  advising  with 
each  other  on  official  matters,  and  because  it  is  not  in  the  public  interest  that  any 
of  their  conversations  or  communications,  or  any  documents  or  repi'odnctions, 
concerning  such  advice  be  disclosed,  you  will  instruct  employees  of  your  Depart- 
ment that  in  all  of  their  appearances  before  the  Subcommittee  of  tlie  Senate 


170  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Committee  on  Government  Operations  regarding  the  inquiry  now  before  it  tliey 
are  not  to  testify  to  any  sucti  conversations  or  communications  or  to  produce 
any  sucli  docifments  or  reproductions. 

That  is  tlie  entire  sentence. 

Senator  Case.  Now,  will  you  read  the  sentence  that  follows,  which 
concludes  the  paragraph  ? 
Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Tiiis  principle  must  be  maintained  regardless  of  who  would  he  benefited  by 
such  disclosures. 

Senator  Case.  Now,  Mr.  Williams,  directing  your  attention  to  the 
first  part  of  the  first  sentence,  the  long  sentence 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Case.  And  the  clause  which  you  did  not  read  the  first 
time 

]\Ir.  Williams.  Because  I  felt  it  had  no  relationship  to  the  point 
I  was  making. 

Senator  Case.  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  clause — 

And  because  it  is  not  in  the  public  interest  that  any  of  their  conversations  or 
communications,  or  any  documents  or  reproductions,  concerning  such  advice 
be  disclosed — - 

and  that  is  with  reference  to  advising  with  each  other,  which  is  in  the 
first  clause. 

Mr.  Williams.  On  official  matters.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  On  official  matters.  And  the  final  sentence  of  the 
paragraph : 

This  principle  must  be  maintained  regardless  of  who  would  be  benefited  by 
such  disclosures. 

I  am  wondering,  if  that  principle  is  to  be  maintained,  if  counsel,  in 
advising  General  Lawton,  would  not  advise  him  just  as  he  has  been 
advised.  While  the  instant  case  was  an  appearance  before  the  sub- 
committee of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Government  Operations,  that 
is  the  occasion  of  the  letter  from  the  President  to  the  Secretary,  but 
I  am  unable  to  see,  personally,  how  that  principle  that  employees  in 
the  executive  branch  must  be  in  position  to  be  completely  candid  in 
advising  each  other,  that  it  is  not  in  the  public  interest  that  any  of 
those  conversations  between  them  be  maintained — I  don't  see  how  that 
could  be  maintained  unless  it  were  applicable  to  other  cases  and  ap- 
pearances before  that  particular  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator,  I  believe,  sir,  that  in  any  proceeding  of 
this  kind  where  there  are  accusations  directed  against  one  man,  it  is 
in  the  interest  of  justice  that  all  the  truth  should  come  out,  and  I 
believe  that  all  the  relevant  truth  should  be  received  in  evidence  here 
unless  there  is  some  rule  or  regulation  which  specifically  tells  an 
officer  of  the  Army,  as  in  this  case,  that  he  may  not  testify  in  this 
proceeding. 

Now,  there  is  no  such  regulation;  there  is  no  such  rule;  and  if  orders 
of  this  kind.  Senator  Case,  I  respectfully  submit,  are  to  be  construed 
so  liberally  that  persons  in  the  executive  can  come  before  a  committee 
of  Congi"ess  and  say  that  although  there  is  no  order  which  blocks  you 
from  getting  my  testimony,  I  have  consulted  counsel  of  the  depart- 
ment which  might  be  embarrassed  by  my  testimony  and  they  have 
suggested  that  I  not  testify — if  that  day  comes,  I  say  that  the  fact- 
finding, investigative  agencies  of  this  Congress  will  be  stopped  and 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  171 

the  avenues  of  information  that  have  heretofore  been  open  to  this 
Congress  will  no  longer  be  open ;  and  the  factfinding  committees  will 
be  completely  thwarted  in  their  work. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  drew^  attention  to  this  because  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  goes  to  the  very  heart  of  one  of  the  big  issues 
that  was  before  the  committee  in  the  hearings  conducted  by  Senator 
Mundt,  and  also  to  one  of  the  issues  that  is  involved  here,  and  that 
is  with  respect  to  the  privilege  of  conversations  that  are  within  the 
executive  department,  or  conversations  on  the  other  side  that  are 
within  the  Congress. 

The  committees  in  the  Congress  have  been  very  jealous  to  preserve 
the  right  of  committees  to  hold  executive  hearings  when  they  want  to. 

The  committees  of  the  Congress  when  they  hold  an  executive  hear- 
ing on  appropriations  or  on  other  matters  do  not  permit  representa- 
tives of  the  executive  branch  to  appear  in  those  hearings  except  by 
invitation. 

The  committees  of  the  Congress  are  jealous  to  preserve  the  right  to 
hold  executive  sessions  and  confidential  discussions,  and  I  can  Under- 
stand how  the  executive  branch  can  say,  conversations  between  mem- 
bers of  the  executive  branch  that  are  in  the  category  of  official  matters, 
are  matters  within  1  of  the  3  branches  of  the  Government. 

Of  course,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  last  part  of  the  letter  by  the 
President,  he  said  that  he  was  not  in  any  way  restricting  the  testimony 
of  witnesses  as  to  what  occurred  where  the  communication  was  directly 
between  any  of  the  principles  of  the  controversy  within  the  executive 
branch  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  members  of  a  subcommittee  or  its  staff, 
on  the  other. 

Now,  before  interrogating  the  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy,  I 
asked  Mr,  cle  Furia,  the  assistant  counsel  on  the  committee  staff  here, 
whether  he  or  Mr.  Chadwick  had  talked  with  General  Lawton. 

I  would  like  to  get  the  information,  frankly,  that  I  feel  General 
Lawton  can  give  us.  I  was  hoping  that  possibly  counsel  for  the  com- 
mittee had  talked  with  General  Lawton,  because  if  that  were  true,  that 
I  think  that  he  would  be  free  to  testify  with  regard  to  conversations 
between  him  and  members  of  this  committee,  or  members  of  this  com- 
mittee's staff  under  the  terms  of  the  President's  letter. 

I  recognize  that  there  are  a  lot  of  ramifications  of  this  question,  but 
I  think  if  we  want,  if  we  venture  to  assert  the  right  of  congressional 
committees  to  demand  the  conversation  that  goes  on  between  two 
officials  in  the  executive  branch,  then  the  committee  must  recognize 
that  we  may  be  infringing  upon  the  confidence  that  we  can  maintain 
for  executive  sessions  of  congressional  committees  as  opposed  to  re- 
quests from  the  executive  branch  or  from  the  judiciary, 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  say  this :  I  don't  know 
what  your  ruling  will  be,  sir,  but  I  say  this  before  you  make  it : 

There  is  no  desire  on  the  part  of  us  to  in  any  way  embarrass  General 
Lawton,  or  in  any  way  put  him  in  a  position  where  he  is  affected  detri- 
mentally in  his  relationship  with  the  department  which  he  served  for 
these  many  years  and  with  the  department  from  which  he  is  now 
enjoying  his  retirement. 

So,  I  will  make  a  proffer  of  what  we  would  have  shown. 

The  Chairman.  I  doubt  that  that  would  be  proper.  You  have  not 
asked  for  an  order  directing  him  to  testify,  to  answer  the  questions. 

52461—54 12 


172  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Do  you  want  to  raise  squarely  the  question  so  that  we  will  have  some- 
thing  definite  to  rule  on  ?  As  the  record  now  stands  I  think  I  am  not  in 
a  position  yet  to  rule. 

Do  you  now  insist  that  he  answer  this  question  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  will  consult  with  Senator  McCarthy  on  this  and  I 
will  see  what  his  disposition  is,  because  I  think  to  some  extent  there 
are  personal  considerations  that  must  be  kept  in  mind.  I  do  not  want 
to  do  anything  to  embarrass  the  general,  but  I  would  like  to  get  the 
evidence. 

The  CiiAiKMAN.  You  can  understand  that  I  do  not  want  to  rule 
on  it  unless  there  is  an  insistence  that  he  be  ordered  and  directed  to 
answer  the  question.    Then  it  will  raise  it  squarely. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Johnson. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  like  to  ask  the  witness : 

Is  there  any  question  whatsoever  of  national  security  involved  in 
the  conversation  between  you  and  General  Zwicker  which  you  have 
refused  to  divulge  to  this  committee  of  Congress? 

General  Lawton.  I  don't  mean  to  be  picayunish,  but  an  answer  to 
your  question  would  then  reveal  the  conversation  between  General 
Zwicker  and  myself,  which  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  disclose. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  is  a  very  simple 
question  and  one  that  ought  to  be  answered,  and  I  don't  think  that 
the  directive  in  May  precludes  the  witness  from  answering  that 
question. 

If  there  is  anything  of  national  security  involved,  why  I  can  see 
where  this  committee  would  have  no  right  to  ask  the  question. 

If  there  is  no  matter  of  national  security  involved,  it  seems  to  me 
that  this  committee  is  being  deprived  of  information  that  it  should 
have. 

I  want  to  remind  the  chairman,  and  I  know  I  do  not  need  to  remind 
him,  that  the  Senator's  political  life  is  at  stake  in  the  question  before 
this  committee  and  it  is  a  serious  matter  indeed.  If  the  national  se- 
curity is  not  involved,  then  most  certainly  we  should  have  help  from 
the  executive  department  in  developing  the  true  facts  with  respect  to  a 
Member  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Johnson,  I  will  say  that,  in  a  way,  to  a 
degree  at  least,  the  question  you  asked  General  Lawton  involves  the 
same  general  problem  that  has  been  raised  with  respect  to  Mr.  Wil- 
liams' questions  and  I  will  say  this :  When  we  were  advised  yesterday 
that  General  Lawton  would  be  questioned  as  a  witness,  we  were  not 
advised  that  he  would  raise  any  question  about  his  right  to  testify. 

Mr.  Williams.  Let  me  hasten  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I 
did  not  know  that  there  would  be  any  question  about  that,  because 
when  I  talked  to  General  Lawton  before  we  talked  to  Mr.  Brooker 
in  the  Pentagon,  there  was  not  any  question  about  his  testifying.  So 
I  could  not  give  the  committee  that  information. 

The  Chairman.  We  were  not  advised  and  I  did  not  know  exactly 
what  you  knew  about  it,  and  for  that  reason  the  committee  did  not 
give  consideration  to  what  the  possible  ruling  should  be. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  the  chairman  is  only  the  voice 
of  the  committee.  I  hesitate  to  make  a  ruling  about  this  question  in- 
volved during  the  other  hearings. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  173 

Mr,  Williams.  I  may  be  able  to  help  you.  I  have  talked  to  Senator 
McCarthy  during  the  last  minute  and  he  says  to  me  that  it  is  his  posi- 
tion that  he  does  not  want  to  force  the  Chair  to  rule  on  this. 

He  feels  that  General  Lawton  has  suffered  reparations  for  his  testi- 
mony before  the  Government  Operations  Committee  before  and  he 
does  not  want  to  put  him  in  a  position  which  would  be  embarrassing 
before  this  committee  or  with  the  Department  of  Defense,  and  we 
will  not  demand  an  order  that  General  Lawton  respond  to  this  question. 

The  Chairman.  Even  though  you  may  not  demand  the  order,  1 
think  the  committee  sliould  consider  it  because  I  think  the  committee 
does  want  to  get  all  the  information  that  it  can  lawfully  get  on  the 
very  important  questions  that  have  been  raised  by  the  charges  against 
the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  irrespective  of  whether  you  raise  it  or 
not.     I  think  we  should  consider  it. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Johnson. 

Senator  Johnson.  I  was  not  quite  through,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Senator  Johnson.  I  had  to  make  a 
ruling  on  that  matter.  I  was  going  to  suggest  to  the  members  of  the 
committee  that  we  ought  to  probably  have  an  executive  session  to  see 
what  the  stand  of  the  committee  will  be  on  this  matter. 

You  may  proceed.  Senator  Johnson. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  defense  of  my  position  I 
thought  I  heard  yesterday,  and  I  have  not  had  a  chance  to  go  over  the 
record  of  yesterday's  hearing,  but  I  understood  that  there  was  a  ruling 
read  yesterday  with  respect  to  the  executive  department  and  the  execu- 
tive department's  privilege  of  speaking  and  testifying,  that  there  was 
to  be  no  impediment  on  anything  which  did  not  affect  the  national 
security.     I  would  like  to  have  our  counsel  speak  to  that  point. 

Was  there  not  something  read  into  the  record  yesterday  with  respect 
to  the  directive  issued  to  the  executive  department  that  testimony 
€Ould  be  freely  given  except  in  cases  where  the  national  security  was 
involved  ? 

The  Chairman.  Well,  Senator,  I  do  not  know  just  how  much  of 
this  discussion  can  take  place  here  at  this  moment,  but  I  do  think,  how- 
ever, that  the  committee  should  consider  this  general  question  that 
has  been  raised. 

As  I  have  indicated,  it  is  important  to  the  committee  to  get  all  the 
truth,  no  matter  who  it  helps  or  hurts  in  this  controversy,  and  even 
though  Senator  McCarthy  is  not  going  to  press  the  question,  it  has 
been  raised  and  I  think  we  ought  to  develop  it  and  that  is  the  reason 
for  the  executive  session. 

Senator  Stennis.  I  have  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stennis. 

Senator  Stennis.  General  Lawton,  I  understand  you  base  your  po- 
sition solely  on  this  directive  dated  May  17,  1954 ;  is  that  correct  ? 

General  Lawton.  In  general,  yes. 

Senator  Stennis.  In  general.  Now,  you  do  not  have  any  other 
directive  in  mind  than  that  which  causes  you  to  decline  to  answer  ? 

General  Lawton.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Stennis.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Johnson.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Johnson. 


174  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  Johnson.  A  reference  has  been  handed  me  with  respect 
to  the  matter  which  I  just  referred  to  a  moment  ago,  entitled  "Removal 
From  Classified  Civil  Service,"  and  I  am  reading  from  yesterday's 
record : 

The  attention  of  the  committee  is  respectfully  called  to  the  last  sentence  of  an 
act  approved  August  24,  1912  (37  Stat.  555;  5  U.  S.  C. :  652   (d),  which  reads: 

"The  right  of  persons  employed  in  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States, 
either  Individually  or  collectively,  to  petition  Congress,  or  any  Member  thereof, 
or  to  furnish  information  to  either  House  of  Congress,  or  to  any  committee, 
or  member  thereof,  shall  not  be  denied  or  interfered  with." 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Just  a  moment  until  Senator  Johnson  finishes. 

Senator  Johnson.  That  is  not  the  passage  that  I  had  in  mind,  but 
it  is  somewhat  in  point. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  agree  wholly  with  what  the  chair- 
man has  said  with  respect  to  desiring  to  get  this  information. 

As  I  suggested  earlier,  I  would  like  to  see  the  information  developed 
as  we  ought  to  develop  any  information  that  would  be  helpful  in  this 
matter. 

With  that  thought  in  mind,  I  suggest  that  the  committee  call  General 
Zwicker.  My  understanding  is  that  he  is  here,  tliat  he  is  available, 
and  I  believe  that  on  direct  examination  of  General  Zwicker,  the  testi- 
mony can  be  developed  that  counsel  for  Senator  McCarthy  desires  to 
develop, 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  lost  you  there.  Senator.  If  I  cannot  develop  it 
through  General  Lawton  w^ho  is  retired,  I  cannot  see  how  I  can  develop 
it  through  General  Zwicker  who  is  on  active  duty  and  I  do  not  believe 
General  Zwicker  would  be  eager  to  testify  to  the  facts  that  he  hopes 
to  develop  through  General  Lawton.  I  would  be  most  surprised  if 
he  is. 

Senator  Case.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  information  might  be  devel- 
oped by  direct  examination  of  General  Zwicker  as  to  what  he  did  or 
positions  he  may  have  taken  personally  without  reference  to  con- 
versations between  him  and  General  Lawton. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  General,  I  think  we  could  argue  this  back 
and  forth  and  probably  wouldn't  get  the  matter  settled  officially  so 
we  could  make  a  ruling.  I  suggest  now,  unless  there  is  objection,  the 
committee  will  go  into  executive  session. 

Senator  Johnson  of  Colorado.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Johnson. 

Senator  Johnson  of  Colorado.  May  I  have  permission  to  insert  in 
the  record  at  this  point,  when  I  find  it,  the  reference  I  mentioned  a 
moment  ago  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  have  such  permission. 
(The  reference  referred  to  is  as  follows :) 

Section  18.    Review  within  departments  and  agencies. 

The  head  of  each  department  and  agency  shall  designate  a  member  or  mem- 
bers of  his  staff  who  shall  conduct  a  continuing  review  of  the  implementation 
of  this  order  within  the  department  or  agency  concerned  to  insure  that  no  in- 
formation is  withheld  hereunder  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
a  right  to  know,  and  to  insure  that  classified  defense  information  is  properly 
safeguarded  in  conformity  herewith. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  175 

Section  19.    Revocation  of  Executive  Order  No.  10290. 

Executive  Order  No.  10290  of  September  24,  1951,  is  revoked  as  of  the  effective 
date  of  this  order. 

Section  20.  Effective  date.  This  order  shall  become  effective  on  December  15, 
1953. 

DwiGHT  D.  Eisenhower, 
The  White  House, 

Novemher  5,  1953. 

(FR  Document  53-9553 ;  filed,  November  9,  1953 ;  9  :  55  a.  m.) 

M.  Constitution  of  United  States  of  America,  revised  and  annotated  1952, 
Senate  Document  170,  82d  Congress,  2d  session,  page  82. 

If  Congress  so  provides,  violation  of  valid  administrative  regulations  may  be 
provided  as  crimes.    But  the  penalties  must  be  provided  in  the  statute  itself. 

The  Chairman.  I  started  out  to  suggest  that  we  take  a  recess,  and 
that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do  now — recess 

Mr.  Williams.  JNIr,  Chairman,  please.    Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

May  I  suggest  this:  If  the  committee  wants  an  executive  session 
before  deciding  the  question  before  it,  may  we  have,  please,  sir,  while 
still  in  open  session,  an  opportunity  to  call  our  next  witness  and  get 
his  testimony  in,  which  is  on  the  same  subject  matter,  and  in  order  to 
have  that  behind  us  ? 

He  has  been  waiting  here  for  a  day  and  a  half  to  testify. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  be  willing  to  do  that. 

General  Lawton  may  withdraw  for  the  moment  and  we  will  call 
the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  would  you  please  call  William  J. 
Harding. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Harding,  will  you  please  take  the  witness 
stand  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  J.  HARDING,  JR. 

Will  you  raise  your  right  hand  and  be  sworn  ? 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  you  will  in  the  evidence  you  will  present 
here  give  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help 
you  God? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  do,  so  help  me  God. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  take  the  witness  stand. 

Give  us  your  name  and  address. 

Mr.  Harding.  William  J.  Harding,  Jr. 

The  Chairman.  And  your  address  ?^ 

Mr.  Harding.  525  Park  Avenue,  Borough  of  Manhattan,  New  York 
City. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  question  the  witness,  Mr.  Williams. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Harding,  how  long  have  you  lived  in  New  York 
City,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  Sixty  years. 

Mr.  Williams.  Lived  there  all  your  life  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  In  what  business  are  you  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  conduct  a  sales  agency,  a  small  sales  agency. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  Mr.  Harding,  I  want  to  direct  your  attention, 
if  I  may,  to  February  18,  1954,  and  ask  you  if  on  the  morning  of  that 
date  vou  were  at  the  Federal  Courthouse  in  Foley  Square,  in  New 
York: 


176  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Harding.  I  was,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  Will  you  tell  us  approximately  what  time  you  ar- 
rived there? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Williams.  Will  the  witness 
pull  the  mike  closer  to  him  and  lean  forward,  so  that  he  may  be  heard? 

Mr.  Harding.  Yes,  sir.    Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  as  sensitive  as  it  might  be,  and,  for  that 
reason,  you  have  to  get  closer  to  it. 

Mr.  Harding.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  WiLi^Aisrs.  Did  you  hear  the  last  pending  question? 

The  question  was :  Approximately  what  time  did  j^ou  arrive  at  the 
Foley  Square  Courthouse  in  New  York  on  the  date  in  question  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  believe  I  arrived  there  somewhere  between  11  and 
11 :  15  a.  m.    I  didn't  look  at  my  watch  as  to  the  exact  time. 

Mr.  WiLLiAivrs.  Was  the  Senate  Permanent  Investigating  Committee 
holding  open  session  on  that  morning? 

Mr.  Harding.  They  were. 

Mr.  Williams.  In  what  room  was  that  open  session  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  It  was  in  room  110  on  the  first  floor  of  the  Federal 
Court  building,  Foley  Square. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  go  to  that  room  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  did. 

Mr.  Williams.  Were  you  admitted  and  seated  in  that  room  during- 
that  hearing? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  was  finally  admitted.  When  I  arrived  there,  the- 
doors  were  closed,  and  the  United  States  marshal  was  at  the  door,, 
evidently  indicating  that  the  room  was  very  well  filled  with  spec- 
tators. I  asked  to  have  pennission  to  go  in.  My  recollection  is  that 
he  went  inside  the  door  and  within  5  or  10  seconds  came  back  and 
said  he  found  a  space  where  I  might  sit  down. 

Mr.  Williams.  Approximately  what  time  was  it  when  you  gained 
your  seat  at  the  hearing  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  Well,  I  still  say  it  was  somewhere  betwen  11  and 
11:15.    I  didn't  look  at  my  watch  as  I  sat  down. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  who  was  testifying  at  the  time  you  gained 
entrance  to  the  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  A  former  major  in  the  United  States  Anny  named 
Peress. 

Mr.  Williams.  Maj.  Irving  Peress? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  believe  that  was  his  first  name,  Irving. 

Mr.  Williams.  Who 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams  at  this  point  the  Chair  is  in  some 
doubt.    Was  this  at  a  public  hearing  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Who  was  interrogating  Major  Peress? 

Mr.  Harding.  At  the  time  I  entered  the  room  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  during  the  time  you  sat  there. 

Mr.  Harding.  During  the  time  I  sat  there  he  was  interrogated, 
to  my  recollection,  by  Mr.  Cohn,  Senator  McCarthy,  and  I  believe 
a  few  questions  were  directed  to  him  by  the  administrative  assistant 
to  General  Dirksen,  a  man  I  believe  named  Rainville. 

Mr.  Williams.  You  mean  Senator  Dirksen  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  meant  to  say  Senator  Dirksen. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  177 

And  also  the  administrative  assistant  to  Senator  Potter,  who  I 
believe  was  a  youns:  man  named  Jones. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  anyone  else  there  present  on  the  stand  or  on 
the  bench  '^ 

I  believe  it  was  held  in  a  courtroom. 

Was  anyone  else  of  the  committee  there  ? 
.  Mr.  Harding.  Anyone  else  from  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Mr.  Harding.  ]\Iy  recollection  is  it  Avas  only  Senator  IMcCarthy 
there  that  morning  as  a  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Williams.  Staff  members  now,  to  your  knowledge. 

Mr.  HvRDiNG.  Pardon. 

Mr.  Williams.  Staff  members  now  I  am  talking  about. 

Mr.  Harding.  Oh,  staff  members.  I  believe  there  was  a  man  named 
Juliana  that  was  there. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  did  there  come  a  time  during  the  morning 
when  a  question  was  asked  about  someone  who  was  seated  in  the 
audience? 

Mv.  Harding.  Yes,  there  was  such  a  time  came. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  was  that  person  who  was  seated  in  the  audience 
identified? 

Mr.  Harding.  Yes.  I  believe  that  Senator  McCarthy  called  out 
the  name  of  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker  and  asked  if  he  would  stand  up. 

jNIr.  Williams.  Where  was  he  seated  with  relationship  to  you  ? 

]\Ir.  Harding.  He  was  seated  in  the  row  directly  behind  me  and 
just  a  bit  to  my  right.  I  would  say  about — in  the  Federal — in  the 
first  place,  let  me  explain  in  the  Federal  court  building  there  are 
not  individual  seats  there.  There  are  rows  of  benches.  It  is  not — 
one  person  doesn't  have  any  seat  right  behind  another.  You  might 
have  3  people  sitting  in  1  bench,  where  2  would  be  sitting  at  the 
bench  ahead.  But  he  was  sitting  at  just  a  point  where  he  was  at 
my  right  elbow,  in  back  of  me. 

Mr.  Williams.  How  was  he  seated  in  this  chair? 

Mr.  Harding.  He  was  seated  forward,  for  most  of  the  testimony, 
in  his  chair,  with  an  intent  eagerness,  I  imagine,  to  listen  to  all  the 
testimony,  with  his  head  bent  forward,  about  the  same  position  that 
I  am  in  now,  I'd  say. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  may  I  ask  you  a  question? 

Do  you  intend  to  offer  by  this  witness  what  happened  in  this  public 
hearing  ? 

Mr.  WiLLL\MS.  I  don't  intend  to  offer  everything  that  happened^ 
because  it  isn't  relevant,  but  I  intend  to  offer  one  incident  which 
happened  which  I  think  is  very  relevant. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  ordinarily  be  a  matter  of  record,  that 
the  reporter  would  have  taken  down  ? 

Mr,  Williams.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  one  of  those  matters  independent  of  the 
record  ? 

Mr.  WiLLL\MS.  This  is  not  of  record. 

The  Chairman.  I  see. 

The  reason  I  asked  the  question :  Ordinarily,  if  it  is  a  matter  of 
record,  the  record,  itself,  would  be  the  best  evidence. 

Mr.  Williams.  This  is  not  of  record. 

The  Chairman.  I  see. 


178  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  can  you  tell  us,  so  we  will  have  the  time 
fixed,  Mr.  Harding,  approximately  what  time  it  was  that  General 
Zwicker  identified  himself,  or  was  identified  by  Senator  McCarthy  or 
Mr.  Cohn? 

Mr.  Harding.  Well,  again  it  would  have  to  be  from  my  best  recol- 
lection. I  didn't  look  at  my  watch  at  the  time  that  Senator  McCarthy 
asked  him  to  stand  up,  but  I  would  say  it  was  possibly  15  to  25 
minutes  after  I  had  sat  there  in  the  room. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  that  you  would  fix  it  at  about  11:30;  11:35? 

Mr.  Harding.  Somewhere  in  there.  I  mean  I  don't  want  to  be 
positive  on  the  testimony  as  to  the  exact  time  it  was.  It  was  some- 
where in  there. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  there  anyone  accompanying  General  Zwicker? 

Mr.  Harding.  Yes.  When  I  went  into  my  seat,  I  noticed  two 
other  officers  of  the  United  States  Army.  First,  I  noticed,  as  I  went 
through,  there  was  one  officer  who  sat  there  with  brigadier  general 
stars  on  his  shoulders.  To  his  right  there  were  two  other  officers  of 
lesser  rank,  I  believe.  They  were  lieutenant  colonels  or  possibly  one 
of  them  may  have  been  a  full  colonel,  but  my  best  recollection  is  they 
were  botli  lieutenant  colonels. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  Mr.  Harding,  did  you  hear  General  Zwicker 
make  any  remark  relative  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee? 

The  Chairman.  You  can  answer  that  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Harding.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now 

Mr.  Williams.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  what  that  was,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Now,  just  a  moment.  Let  us  be  sure  we  have  the 
identification  of  the  general  certain  before  he  proceeds  to  answer  that. 

Did  you  know  General  Zwicker? 

Mr.  Harding.  Did  I  know  him  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Harding.  No  ;  I  did  not  know  him. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  it  you  came  to  have  the  opinion  it  was 
General  Zwicker  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  came  to  have  the  opinion  because  he  stood  up  right 
at  my  right  elbow  when  his  name  was  called,  and  I  didn't  think  some 
other  general  would  stand  up  in  the  room. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  As  I  remember,  you  said  Senator 
McCarthy  asked  him  to  stand  up. 

Mr.  Harding.  That's  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  I  assume,  Mr.  Williams,  this  would  be  in  the 
record. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  is  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I  haven't  read  the  record,  so  I  wouldn't  know 
on  this  particular  hearing. 

You  heard  this  gentleman,  then,  make  some  remark  after  he  had 
been  identified  by  the  chairman  and  then  stood  up  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  I  heard  him  make  the  remark  after  he  had  identified 
himself  as  being  General  Zwicker ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Would  you  tell  the  committee  what  the  remark  was 
that  you  first  heard  that  General  Zwicker  directed  toward  Senator 
McCarthv? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  179 

Mr.  Harding.  I'd  be  glad  to  answer  that  question  directly  to  you,  sir, 
but  I  would  like  to  respectfully  ask  that  I  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
relate  the  part  of  the  conversation  or  part  of  Senator  McCarthy's 
questions  to  General  Zwicker ;  and,  as  I  remember,  General  Zwicker's 
answers  to  Senator  McCarthy — I  don't  have  them  verbatim,  but  I 
remember  them  very  well. 

Mr.  Williams.  They  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  of  record. 

The  Chairman.  That,  of  course,  is  the  best  evidence,  and  if  you 
want  to  show  that  it  would  still  have  to  be  subjected  to  scrutiny  to 
see  whether 

Mr.  Harding.  If  it's  in  the  record 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Harding.  Those  are  the  few  sentences  that  I  heard  and,  as 
General  Zwicker  finished 

The  Chairman.  Now,  when  you  say  he  finished,  you  mean 

Mr.  Harding.  Pardon. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  he  finished  answering  the  question  that 
Senator  McCarthy  had  asked  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  The  last  question,  or  the  last  statement,  let's  say.  I 
think  the  last,  as  I  remember,  was  a  statement  by  Senator  McCarthy 
directed  directly  to  General  Zwicker.  It  was  not  a  question,  it  was  a 
statement,  as  I  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  was  General  Zwicker  still  standing  or  did  he 
sit  down  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  He  then  sat  down. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Proceed. 

Mr.  Harding.  As  he  sat  down,  his  head — I  was  leaning  back  in  my 
seat,  like  I  am  now,  and  his  head  passed  my  head,  within,  I  would 
say,  12  to  14  inches  of  it,  and  I  distinctly  heard  him  mutter,  undier 
his  breath,  "You  S.  O.  B." 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  did  you  hear  any  further  conversation? 

Did  you  hear — 

Mr.  Harding.  Did  I  hear — I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  hear  any  further  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  Within  a  few  seconds  thereafter,  after  he  had  sat 
completely  down  in  his  seat,  I  heard  him  turn  to  1  or  2  of  the  officers 
to  his  right — I  don't  know  whether  he  was  directing  his  remarks  to 
both  of  them,  but  at  least  to  one  of  them — and  he  said,  "You  see,  I  told 
you  this  is  what  we'd  get." 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  thereafter,  what  is  your  best  recollection  as 
to  whether  you  heard  any  more  remarks  of  that  character  from  Gen- 
eral Zwicker? 

Mr.  Harding.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I  heard  him  mutter  once 
more  during  the  testimony  under  his  breath,  but  I  am  unwilling  at 
this  time,  under  oath,  to  state  definitely  that  I  did  hear  him  say  it 
the  second  time.  I  think  I  did,  but  I  will  not  swear  definitely  that 
I  did. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  this  was  before  General  Zwicker  testified  in 
executive  session ;  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Harding.  It  was  the  morning  of  the  afternoon  at  which  he 
had  been  told  by  Senator  McCarthy  that  he  was  going  to  be  called 
into  executive  or  closed  session,  whatever  you  call  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  that  General  Zwicker  had  not  yet  testified  as  a 
witness  before  the  committee? 


180         HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr.  Harding.  Well,  I  don't  know  whether  he  had  or  hadn't  at  some 
other  time,  sir.  but  as  of  that  day  he  had  not. 

Mr,  Williams.  I  ask  the  Chair  to  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  Gen- 
eral Zwicker's  testimony,  which  is  in  issue  here,  did  not  begin  until 
4:30  that  afternoon  in  executive  session  and  that  the  incidents  that 
are  being  testified  to  took  place  in  the  morning  in  open  session. 

Senator  Stetstnis.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  that  point — 

The  Ch'Vtrman.  Senator  Stennis. 

Senator  Stennis.  It  is  not  clear  why  Senator  McCarthy  was  calling 
out  for  General  Zwicker  or  addressing  remarks  to  him  while  he  was 
back  in  the  audience. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  think  in  proper  context  we  ought  to  read  that  into 
the  record  at  this  time. 

Major  Peress  was  on  the  stand  and  he  was  answering  questions  or, 
I  should  sav,  refusing  to  answer  questions,  and  finally,  the  chairman — • 
and  I  am  reading  from  page  136 — turned  and  said : 

The  Chairman.  General  Zwicker,  may  I  ask  you  a  question?  You  can  stay 
ris-'ht  there. 

Whenever  I  served  as  O.  D. — and  I  think  this  has  been  general  practice  in 
the  ^larine  Corps,  the  Navy,  and  the  Army — you  normally  had  access  to  the 
encoding  and  decoding  machines.  Ordinarily  an  officer  of  the  rank  of  major 
or  above  must  take  his  stint  at  encoding  or  decoding. 

Could  you  tell  me  whether  or  not  that  has  been  the  practice  at  Camp  Kilmer? 

Brig  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker.  It  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  so  far  as  you  know,  this  individual  never 
had  access  to  any  confidential  or  secret  material? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answer  is  what? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  .Just  one  other  question,  General.  I  did  not  intend  to  im- 
pose upon  you  this  morning. 

His  Army  file  contains  reference  to  his  being  considered  for — and  I  think 
I  am  quoting  it  correctly — sensitive  work  in  May  of  195.3.  Would  you  have  any 
idea  what  that  sensitive  work  was?  If  you  do  not  know,  we  will  show  you 
the  file  to  refresh  your  recollection.  The  file  shows  that  in  May,  that  is,  after 
it  was  fully  known  that  he  was  a  Communist,  the  tile  shows  that  he  was  con- 
sidered for  sensitive  work. 

The  file  does  not  show  whether  he  was  rejected  or  not.  Just  offhand,  you 
wouldn't  know  what  that  sensitive  work  would  be? 

General  Zwicker.  I  do  not. 
Tlie  Chairman.  I  wonder  if  you  can  do  this :  You  are  appearing  this  after- 
noon in  executive  session.  I  would  like  to  have  you  here  to  listen  to  all  of 
this  testimony.  If  you  have  an  aide  with  you,  I  wonder  if  you  could  have 
somebody  call  Camp  Kilmer  and  find  out  just  what  the  sensitive  work  was 
that  he  was  being  considered  fur. 

Mr.  Peress  then  interjected: 

I  might  be  able  to  help  you  on  that. 

General  Zwicker.  Even  if  I  did  know,  I  would  not  be  privileged  to  tell  you, 
under  the  Executive  order  which  forbids  us  to  discuss  matters  of  that  nature. 

Mr.  DE  FuRiA.  There  is  another  sentence  in  there. 
The  Chairman.  One  further  sentence,  counsel. 
Mr.  Williams  (reading)  : 

The  Chairman.  I  may  say.  General,  you  will  be  in  difficulty  if  you  refuse 
to  tell  us  what  sensitive  work  a  Communist  was  being  considered  for.  There  is 
no  Executive  order  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  Communi.sts.  I  v/ant  to  tell 
you  right  now,  you  will  be  asked  that  question  this  afternoon.  You  will  be 
ordered  to  make  available  that  information. 

And  then  Mr.  Peress  speaks. 

Is  that  the  testimony  you  had  reference  to? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  181 

Mr.  Harding.  That  is  the  testimony  I  had  reference  to;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Williams.  You  may  examine. 

Mr.  Chadwick.  We  have  no  questions,  sir. 

The  Chaibman.  No  questions. 

Mr.  Harding.  Am  I  excused? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused,  Mr.  Harding. 

Mr.  Harding.  Thank  you. 

(Thereupon,  at  11:05  a.  m.,  the  committee  proceeded  in  executive 
session. ) 

(At  11 :  49  a.  m.,  the  committee  being  in  recess,  an  announcement 
was  made,  as  follows:) 

;  Mr.  Jex.  The  committee  has  asked  me  to  announce  that  the  Chair 
will  change  its  order  from  an  indefinite  recess  to  a  definite  recess  to 
2  p.  m.,  at  which  time  the  committee  will  reconvene  for  public  hearing. 

(Thereupon,  at  11 :  50  a.  m.,  the  committee  recessed  until  2  p.  m.  the 
same  day.) 

afternoon  session 

Thereupon,  at  2  :  07  p.  m.,  the  committee  reconvened. 
.    The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  now  be  in  session. 

The  photographers  will  please  leave  the  room.  We  will  let  them 
come  back  if  they  put  their  cameras  away. 

With  reference  to  the  matter  which  was  under  discussion  when  the 
committee  took  a  recess,  the  committee  will  continue  a  study  of  this 
situation  and  the  matter  connected  with  it.  The  fact  involved  is  in- 
volved in  the  final  decision  which  will  be  made  by  the  Senate,  probably, 
and  in  a  lesser  degree  by  this  committee  later  on.  It  is  involved  in 
some  of  the  charges  which  are  under  consideration.  So  that  matter 
will  not  be  presented  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Williams,  do  you  have  any  further  questions  of  the  witness 
who  was  on  the  stand  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  then  be  excused. 

You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator  McCarthy  will  stand  the  stand,  sir. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  JOSEPH  R.  McCARTHY 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  you  will 
give  in  the  matter  now  pending  before  the  committee  will  be  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  orderly  sequence  of  things, 
we  are  going,  with  the  Chair's  indulgence,  to  address  ourselves  in 
the  first  instance  to  the  so-called  Zwicker  case  inasmuch  as  the  com- 
mittee has  heard  testimony  on  that  this  morning. 

Would  you  please  state  your  full  name  for  the  record? 

Senator"  McCarthy.  Joe  McCarthy. 

Mr.  Williams.  You  are  the  junior  Senator  from  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator,  are  you  presently  serving  in  this,  the  83d 
Congress,  as  chairman  of  the  Government  Committee  on  Operations^ 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Government  Operations  ? 


182  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am. 

Mr.  Williams,  Are  you  also  serving  as  chairman  of  the  Permanent 
Investigating  Committee,  which  is  a  subcommittee  of  that  Govern- 
ment Operations  Committee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am. 

Mr.  Williams.  How  long  have  you  been  so  serving? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Since  January  of  1953,  as  our  administration 
took  over. 

Mr.  Williams.  Directing  your  attention,  sir,  to  1953,  was  your  com- 
mittee engaged  in  an  investigation  of  subversion  at  Fort  Monmouth  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  We  were. 

Mr.  Williams.  In  that  connection,  sir,  did  you  meet  the  man  who 
testified  here  this  morning,  General  Lawton  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  while  conducting  your  investigation  into  the 
subject  about  which  I  have  just  alluded  to,  did  there  come  to  your 
attention  a  situation  that  obtained  at  Camp  Kilmer  with  respect  to  a 
Maj.  Irving  Peress? 

Senator  McCarthy.  There  did. 

Mr.  Williams.  Who  was  the  commanding  general  at  Camp  Kilmer 
at  that  time  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  General  Zwicker. 

Mr.  Williams.  Gen.  Kalph  W.  Zwicker,  who  is  the  subject  matter 
of  one  of  the  charges  in  this  case? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Would  you  tell  the  committee,  Senator,  when,  in 
the  first  instance,  the  so-called  Peress  case  came  to  your  attention  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  came  to  our  attention,  Mr.  Williams,  in 
November,  I  believe,  of  1953. 

Mr.  Williams.  At  that  time,  was  General  Zwicker  the  commanding 
general  of  Camp  Kilmer? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir.  He  became  commanding  general  in 
July  of  1953. 

Mr.  Williams.  What,  if  anything,  to  your  knowledge  did  you  or 
members  of  your  staff  do  with  respect  to  the  information  on  Major 
Peress  that  you  have  just  described  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  We  turned  all  of  the  information  over  to  Mr. 
J  ohn  Adams,  legal  counsel  for  the  Army. 

Mr.  Williams.  Can  you  fix  that,  sir,  in  point  of  time  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Well,  it  would  be  by  hearsay.  My  chief  counsel 
turned  it  over  to  him,  I  think  he  reported  to  me,  in  December.  In 
other  words,  shortly  after  we  got  the  information. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  there  any  subpena  issued  for  Major  Peress  in 
December  of  1953? 

Senator  McCarthy.  There  was  not. 

Mr.  Williams.  Wliat  was  the  next  action  that  was  taken  by  your 
committee  with  relationship  to  this  case,  and  I  direct  your  attention  to 
the  early  part  of  1954,  the  early  part  of  January. 

Senator  McCarthy.  On  January  4,  1954,  my  chief  counsel  again 
took  the  matter  up  with  Mr.  Adams,  called  his  attention  to  the  fact 
that  they  had  a  man  who  was  a  leader  in  the  Communist  Party  in  a 
rather  key  position  at  a  port  of  embarkation  and  debarkation  and 
suggested  that  the  Army  do  something  about  it  rather  than  have  our 
committee  go  into  the  matter. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  183 

Mr.  Williams.  Thereafter,  and  I  refer  to  January  4,  thereafter, 
what,  if  any,  action,  did  your  committee  take  with  respect  to  this 
particular  situation  at  Camp  Kilmer  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Well,  when  nothing  was  done  when  Peress  con- 
tinued to  serve,  we  asked  for  his  appearane  before  the  committee. 
Request  was  made  on  the  26th  day  of  January.  He  appeared  in  execu- 
tive session  on  the  30th  day  of  January. 

]Mr.  Williams.  Where  did  he  appear?  I  am  calling  about  geo- 
graphically. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Courthouse,  Foley  Square,  New  York. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  was  on  January  30  of  1954  of  this  year  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Thafs  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Peress  was  called,  as  I  understand  it,  in  executive 
session  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Correct. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  he  interrogated  at  that  time  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  He  was  in  detail. 

Mr.  Williams.  Who  was  there  present,  sir  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  As  I  recall,  Mr.  Rainville,  the  administrative 
assistant  for  Senator  Dirksen,  was  present;  Mr.  Jones,  the  admin- 
istrative assistant  for  Senator  Potter;  Mr.  John — I  am  not  sure  if 
John  Adams  was  present  or  not.  It  seems  to  me  he  did  not  come  to 
the  executive  session  meeting.    I  wouldn't  know  for  certain,  however. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator,  what  was  the  general  subject  matter  of  that 
which  Major  Peress  was  interrogated  on  the  occasion  of  this  executive 
session  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  We  asked  him  about  his  alleged  Communist 
activities,  whether  he  had  graduated  from  a  Communist  leadership 
school,  the  name  of  the  school  was — let's  see,  what  was  that  name? 

Mr.  Williams.  Inwood  Victory  School. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Inwood  Victory  School.  Refused  to  answer 
that  on  the  ground  that  if  he  answered  it,  it  might  incriminate  him ; 
asked  whether  he  was  recruiting  soldiers  at  Camp  Kilmer ;  again,  the 
fifth  amendment ;  asked  whether  he  held  Communist  meetings  in  his 
quarters  at  Camp  Kilmer ;  again  refused  to  answer  on  the  grounds  of 
self-incrimination. 

He  was  asked  about  a  change  in  duty  orders  that  he  got  in  February, 
I  think,  of  1953.  He  had  been  scheduled  to  go  to  Yokohama,  Japan. 
He  applied  for  a  change  in  duty  orders  on  the  ground  of  hardship.  He 
got  that  change  in  duty  orders.  We  J:hought  the  circumstances  were 
unusual.  The  only  grounds  he  had,  the  only  grounds  were  that  his 
wife  and  daughter  were  visiting  a  psychiatrist.  He  could  not  even 
remember  the  name  of  the  psychiatrist,  and  on  the  basis  of  that  he 
was  given  duty  in  the  United  States,  and  I  believe  the  Senators  on 
the  committee  had  letters  from  any  number  of  young  men  who  had 
much  more  pronounced  hardship  cases,  cases  of  wives  on  the  point 
of  death. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Williams,  may  I  inquire,  this  is  preliminary,  is 
it  not,  to  the  point  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  To  the  testimony.  I  think  it  is  necessary  to  set  the 
backdrop.  I  am  not  going  to  pursue  this  in  detail.  I  think  it  is 
necessary  to  set  the  backdrop  for  General  Zwicker's  appearance  on 
February  18.  That  is  what  I  am  undertaking  to  do  in  these  few 
minutes. 


184  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  With  that  understanding,  I  am  not  going  to  restrict 
you  too  much,  but  we  don't  want  to  try  that  case  over. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  would  you  tell  us,  Senator,  in  just  a  few  words, 
what  information  you  developed  on  this  occasion  of  the  executive 
session,  the  appearance  of  Major  Peress  ?  You  learned  he  was  inducted 
into  the  Army  January  1,  1953. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Right. 

Mr.  AViLLiAMs.  He  came  in  as  a  captain,  did  he  not? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Captain ;  as  a  captain. 

Mr.  Williams.  You  found  out  in  August  of  1953  that  investigations 
had  been  conducted  of  him  by  the  Army  in  which  he  had  taken  the  fifth 
amendment. 

Senator  McCarthy.  We  learned  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  in 
April  of  1953  the  FBI  had  given  the  Army  a  complete  report  on  Peress 
containing  practically  all  the  information  which  we  developed  at  the 
hearings. 

Then  in  August  of  1953  he  was  given  a  questionnaire  and  asked 
many  of  the  questions  which  we  asked  him  about  Communist  activities, 
and  he  wrote  across  the  face  of  the  question,  '"Refuse  to  answer.  Fifth 
amendment." 

In  November  1953  he  was  promoted  to  major. 

Mr.  Williams.  He  was  promoted  to  major  from  captain  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir;  after  it  was  fully  known  about  all  his 
Communist  activities. 

Mr.  Williams.  At  tliat  time  was  he  stationed  at  Camp  Kilmer? 

Senator  McCarthy.  He  was,  and  General  Zwicker  was  his  com- 
manding officer. 

Mr.  Williams.  How  long  had  he  been  at  Camp  Kilmer  as  of  August  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  You  mean  General  Zwicker  or  Peress?  Do 
you  want  Peress  first? 

Mr.  Williams.  Peress  first. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Peress  went  directly  from  the  debarkation 
point  in  Washington  to  Camp  Kilmer,  and  I  believe  that  was  in 
February  1953.    So  he  had  been  there  quite  some  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  How  long  had  General  Zwicker  been  commanding 
general ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  From  July  1953. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now^  at  the  time  that  IMajor  Peress  appeared  before 
you  on  January  30,  of  1954,  he  was  still  on  active  duty  at  Camp  Kilmer ; 
is  that  correct? 

Senator  McCarthy.  He  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  As  a  result  of  the  testimony  developed  in  executive 
session  on  that  occasion,  was  a  request  made  for  his  appearance  in 
open  session  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  WiLLL\MS.  Do  you  recall  when  he  was  asked  to  present  himself 
for  interrogation  and  examination  in  open  session? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do  not  recall  the  date  he  was  asked  to  appear. 
He  appeared  on  the  18th  day  of  February. 

I  might  say  that  in  the  meantime,  Mr.  Williams,  a  rather  important 
occurrence  having  a  direct  bearing  upon  this  Zwicker  matter,  after 
Peress  appeared  and  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  recruiting  soldiers 
into  the  Communist  Party,  whether  he  Avas  holding  Communist  meet- 
ings at  his  home,  whether  he  was  a  graduate  of  a  Communist  leadership 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  185 

school,  whether  a  Communist  helped  him  to  get  his  change  in  duty 
orders,  I  wrote  to  Secretary  Stevens  and  suggested  that  this  man  be 
court-martialed. 

There  were  two  grounds  for  the  court-martial : 

No,  1 :  When  he  entered,  he  signed  a  statement  to  the  effect  that 
he  belonged  to  no  subversive  organization,  specifically  I  believe  that 
included  tlie  Communist  Party. 

Under  the  code,  that  is  the  criminal  code,  that  is  a  felony  calling 
for  a  prison  sentence  up  to  5  years. 

I  felt  also  that  his  refusal  to  answer  the  questions  about  Commu- 
nist activities,  while  tliis  refusal  could  not  be  accepted  in  a  criminal 
court,  contrary  to  the  popular  conception  the  use  of  the  fifth  amend- 
ment in  regard  to  criminal  activities  can  be  used  in  a  civil  action. 

I  suggested  to  Bob  Stevens,  and  I  cannot  quote  the  exact  language, 
that  here  was  a  chance  to  serve  notice  on  all  officers  in  the  Army  that 
there  would  be  no  more  coddling  of  Communists,  that  if  they  had  any 
information  about  Communist  infiltration,  that  they  would  be  ex- 
pected to  give  that  information  to  the  proper  authorities  that  could 
be  acted  upon.    That  was  done. 

Mr.  Williams.  On  what  date  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do  not  recall  the  date  the  letter  was  dis- 
patched.   It  was  made  public,  as  I  recall,  on  February  1. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  that  letter  written,  to  the  best  of  your  recol- 
lection, on  the  date  on  which  Peress  had  testified  before  your  com- 
mittee ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  was  written  that  evening,  as  I  recall,  or 
the  next  morning. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  in  the  January  30  executive  session 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  I  add  something,  Mr.  Williams  ?  I  do 
not  like  to  make  these  answers  lengthy,  but  Secretary  Stevens  was  not 
there,  was  not  in  the  country  at  the  time  the  letter  was  made  public. 
He  arrived  back  in  the  States  on  the  2d  of  Februai'y. 

Before  he  set  foot  on  American  soil,  Peress  was  removed  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  military.  When  I  say  removed,  I  should  explain 
that  unless  the  penalty  for  a  felony  is  over  5  years,  tlie  military  does 
not  retain  jurisdiction  in  case  of  an  honorable  discharge.  In  this 
case  the  penalty  was  a  5-year  period  so  they  lost  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Williams.  Your  point  is  that  they  lost  jurisdiction  to  try  him 
for  an  offense  that  he  had  committed  during  his  service  as  an  officer 
once  they  discharged  him.    They  gav«  him  an  honorable  discharge. 

On  what  date  was  he  honorably  discharged? 

Senator  McCarthy.  On  the  morning  of  February  2. 

Mr.  Williams.  1954  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  1954,  the  morning  after  my  letter  to  Bob 
Stevens  was  made  public. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  coming  to  February  18  of  1954,  this  was  the 
date  on  which  Peress  was  directed  to  present  himself  for  open  session  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  hearing  was  set  for  what  time  originally  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  think  the  hearing  Avas  set  for  10  o'clock  in 
the  morning. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  notice  here  in  the  record  that  it,  in  fact,  did  not 
begin  until  much  later  than  that. 


186  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  reason  for  that,  Mr.  Williams,  was  that 
my  wife  was  in  a  taxicab  the  night  before  and  broke  her  ankle  in 
three  places. 

•  I  was  up  with  her  all  night  and  had  to  take  her  to  the  hospital 
in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Williams.  What  time  did  you  get  away  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  think  it  was  11.  Let  me  see,  let  me  look  at 
the  record.  It  Avas  about  11  o'clock.  In  other  words,  we  Avere  about 
1  hour  off  schedule. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  go  directly  to  Foley  Square  from  Flower 
Hospital  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did  not  go  to  Flower  Hospital.  I  got  Jean 
in  an  ambulance  and  went  directly  from  there  to  Foley  Square. 

Mr.  Williams.  Who  was  the  first  witness  heard  at  that  meeting? 

Senator  McCarthy.  A  Ruth  Eagle.  She  was  an  undercover  agent 
for  the  New  York  Police  Department,  specializing  in  Communist  ac- 
tivities. 

In  fact,  she  joined  the  Communist  Party  at  the  behest  of  the  New 
York  Police  Department,  as  I  recall. 

Mr.  Williams.  She  identified  Major  Peress  as  a  section  leader  in 
the  party  in  New  York. 

Senator  McCarthy.  She  identified  him : 

1.  As  a  graduate  of  the  Communist  leadership  school  ; 

2.  As  a  section  organizer  for  the  Communist  Party. 

In  other  words,  as  an  important  functionary  of  the  Coipmunist 
Party. 

Mr.  Williams.  Following  her  testimony.  Major  Peress  was  called 
to  the  stand,  was  he  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes ;  he  was  called  to  the  stand.  That  is  our 
practice  when  somebody  is  identified  as  a  Communist;  we  call  them 
to  the  stand  immediately,  wherever  possible,  in  order  to  permit  them 
to  admit  it  or  deny  it. 

Mr.  Williams.  Was  Peress  accompanied  by  counsel  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes ;  he  was. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  he  respond  to  the  questions  that  were  pro- 
pounded to  him  regarding  his  Communist  actvities  in  open  session 
on  this  morning? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No ;  he  was  very  selective  in  his  answers.  He 
answered  everything,  as  I  recall,  not  having  to  do  with  Communist 
activities,  but  when  we  got  to  his  Communist  activities,  why,  there 
was  the  usual  "I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  ground  my  answer  might 
tend  to  incriminate  me." 

'  ^  Mr.  Williams.  Did  there  come  a  time  in  the  interrogation  of  Major 
Peress  when  he  was  asked  about  an  application  that  lie  had  made 
while  at  Camp  Kilmer  for  sensitive  work  which  required  a  security 
clearance,  an  extra  security  clearance  for  liim  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir;  there  did  come  that  time,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams. The  reason  for  that  question  was  that  we  had  the  file.  We 
knew  he  had  applied  for  security  clearance  to  handle — I  do  not  recall 
what  classification,  whether  it  was  secret  or  confidential  work. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  he  respond  to  the  questions  that  were  pro- 
pounded to  him  on  that  subject? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  he  gave  us  a  rather  unusual  answer  when 
I  asked  him  what  sensitive  work  he  was  trying  to  get  into.    Knowing 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  187 

he  was  a  Communist,  a  Communist  leader,  I  was  curious  to  know 
what  type  of  sensitive  work  he  was  trying  to  get  into,  and  his  answer, 
as  I  said,  was  unusual. 

He  said  he  was  applying  for  a  different  type  of  work  on  teeth.  In 
other  words,  it  was  sensitive  teeth  he  was  dealing  with,  which  did  not 
make  any  sense  to  me. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  this  provoke  a  question  from  someone  on  the 
staff  during  the  hearing  directed  to  his  commanding  general? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  asked  his  commanding  general  if  he  would 
tell  us  what  sensitive  work  this  Communist  had  applied  for. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  now  direct  your  attention,  Senator  McCarthy,  to 
the  record  which  is  before  you. 

Senator  McCarthy.  What  page  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Page  136,  and  I  ask  you  if  that  was  the  first  interro- 
gation of  General  Zwicker,  in  either  open  or  closed  session,  by  you  or 
by  any  member  of  the  staff,  or  of  the  committee. 

Senator  McCarthy.  This  was  the  first  interrogation  by  the  com- 
mittee. However,  he  had  been  interrogated  by  members  of  the  staff, 
Mr.  Jim  Juliana,  prior  to  that  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  will  come  to  that  in  just  a  moment. 

I  now  direct  your  attention.  Senator,  to  the  record,  page  136,  and 
ask  you  whether  or  not  you  requested  General  Zwicker  to  find  out 
what  the  nature  of  the  sensitive  work  was,  for  which  Major  Peress 
applied  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  he  respond  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No;  he  told  me  he  would  not  give  me  that 
information.    If  I  may  quote  him  verbatim,  he  said 

The  Chairman.  Will  vou  read  the  question  you  asked  him,  as  well? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes.    I  said  to  him : 

I  wonder  if  you  can  do  this :  You  are  appearing  this  afternoon  in  executivtj 
session.  I  would  like  to  have  you  here  to  listen  to  all  of  this  testimony.  If  you 
have  an  aide  with  you,  I  wonder  if  you  could  have  somebody  call  Camp  Kilmer 
and  find  out  just  what  the  sensitive  work  was  that  he  was  being  considered  for. 

General  Zwicker.  Even  if  I  did  know,  I  would  not  be  privileged  to  tell  you, 
under  the  Executive  order  which  forbids  us  to  discuss  matters  of  that  nature. 

May  I  say  in  connection  with  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  order  upon 
which  Zwicker  relied  was  not  the  Presidential  order,  by  an  order  of 
the  Army,  which,  according  to  him,  provided  that  they  could  not  give 
security  information,  unless  they  had  permission  from  the  Assistant 
Chief  of  Staff. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  in  your  possession  a  copy  of  that 
order  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No,  I  do  not.  He  did  not  supply  a  copy  of 
the  order. 

I  pointed  out  to  him  that  I  thought  this  was  not  security  informa- 
tion, but  asked  him,  in  the  event,  assuming  it  was,  would  he  ask 
the  Assistant  Cliief  of  Staff  of  G2  to  give  him  permission  to  tell  us 
the  truth  about  this  matter;  and  he  said,  "No,  I  will  not."  He  refused 
to  ask  for  permission  to  give  us  information,  and  said,  "I  would  rely 
upon  the  order,  and  though  I  have  information,  I  cannot  give  you 
the  information." 

Mr.  Williams.  To  your  knowledge,  then,  or  to  your  knowledge  now, 
is  there  any  Executive  order  which  precluded  General  Zwicker  from 

52461—54 13 


188  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

simply  stating  tlie  nature  of  those  sensitive  works  for  wliicli  Major 
Peress  applied? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Definitely  not,  on  a  Truman  order  or  on  an 
Eisenhower  order,  so  far  as  I  know:  and  I  think  anyone  versed  in 
the  law  would  state  that  neither  applied  to  this  question. 

Mr.  Williams.  Prior  to  General  Zwicker's  appearance  before  the 
committee — I  am  talking  about  his  appearance  in  the  courtroom  at 
Foley  Square,  which  was  described  for  us  this  morning  by  Mr. 
Harding — prior  to  that  time,  had  you  had  any  member  of  the  com- 
mittee staff  interview  General  Zwicker? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  Mr.  Jim  Juliana  had  interviewed  him. 

Mr.  Williams.  Do  you  know  how  long  prior  to  February  18  that 
was? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  was  several  days  prior  to  that.  I  would  not 
know  the  number  of  days. 

Mr.  Williams.  In  your  function  as  chairman  of  the  coimnittee,  was 
a  report  made  to  you  as  to  General  Zwicker's  interview  with  Mr. 
Juliana  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes.  I  discussed  this  in  detail  with  Mr. 
Juliana. 

Mr.  WiLLL\MS.  What  did  you  except  to  develop  from  General 
Zwicker  when  you  requested  his  presence  on  the  18th  of  February 
1954? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Wlien  he  was  not  under  oath,  he  was  talking 
to  Mr.  Juliana,  and  he  said 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.  I  think,  Senator,  that  is  hearsay, 
without  question. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  offer  it  for  this  reason,  ]\Ir.  Chairman — and  I  see 
the  point  of  your  objection,  of  course.  I  offer  it  for  this  reason.  Cer- 
tainly, in  going  to  the  state  of  mind  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
as  General  Zwicker  took  the  stand,  as  you  can  appreciate,  being  a  law- 
yer and  judge  yourself,  Mr.  Chairman — it  is  necessary  to  know  what 
information  he  had  been  led  to  believe  he  would  get  from  General 
Zwicker  as  a  result  of  the  interview  of  the  staff. 

Now,  in  every  lawsuit  we  learn,  as  you  know,  you  cannot  interview 
every  witness.  We  have  to  rely  on  other  people  to  interview  the  wit- 
nesses, and  they  bring  us  reports  as  to  what  the  witness  will  testify  to. 
Sometimes  the  witnesses  "fence."  Sometimes  they  don't  say  what  we 
are  led  to  believe  they  are  going  to  say;  and  that,  of  course,  often 
affects  the  vigorousness  of  the  examination  which  we  conduct;  such 
as  this  morning,  here.  I  had  the  very  experience.  I  had  been  led  to 
believe  that  a  witness  was  going  to  testify  to  certain  things,  and  when 
he  took  the  stand,  I  was  very  much  surprised. 

I  think  this  goes  to  the  state  of  mind  of  the  examiner,  and,  for  that 
reason,  I  respectfully  urge  you,  sir,  to  allow  this  to  go  in. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  it  has  sometthing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  may  say  further 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  I  can  readily  understand  that  in  a  re- 
port of  that  kind,  if  it  were  permitted  to  appear  in  the  record,  it  would 
involve  a  lot  of  other  people  and  get  off  into  all  sorts  of  diversions. 
But  I  am  just  wondering  where  we  are  headed. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  189 

Mr.  Williams.  I  assure  you  we  are  not  headed  anywhere  but  to  a 
direct  answer  to  a  question  as  to  what  Senator  McCarthy  expected 
this  witness  would  testify  to,  as  a  result  of  the  official  report  made  by 
the  staff  investigator  who  interviewed  him  a  few  days  ago. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  are  now  referring  to  General  Zwicker? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Juliana  reported  to  me — I  might  say  this 
was  an  official  report  from  the  staff  member  to  the  committee — that 
Zwicker  said  that  he  had  objected  to  the  discharge;  that  he  talked  to 
the  Pentagon — he  did  not  tell  me  who  he  talked  to  at  the  Pentagon — 
and  that  he  was  ordered  to  give  Peress  an  immediate  discharge  after 
my  letter  to  Stevens  came  out. 

The  Chairman.  One  further  observation  in  respect  to  this  ruling. 
It  is  not  permitted  in  testimony  on  the  theory  that  what  he  was  being 
told  was  the  truth,  or  even  as  what  General  Zwicker  said;  but  that 
it  was  reported  to  him  by  one  of  his  examiners.  With  that  under- 
standing  

Mr.  Williams.  Surely. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  you  are  not  claiming  that  when  the 
agent  reported  it  was  the  truth,  or  that  General  Zwicker  even  said  it  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  I  do  claim  it  was  the  truth,  but  I  expect  to  prove 
that  through  others. 

The  Chairman.  I  know,  but  you  are  not  offering  this  for  that 
purpose. 

Mr.  Williams.  Not  for  this  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Senator  McCarthy.  In  answer,  without  elaborating 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  classified  material? 

]Mr.  Williams.  I  think  what  the  Senator  has  testified  to  is  not  classi- 
fied, if  I  understand  that  question.  Pie  is  able  to  recount  what  his 
investigator  told  him. 

Senator  McCarthy.  A  personnel  matter,  not  a  security  matter. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a  report  of  one  of  your  own  investigators  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Right. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  proceed. 

Senator  McCarthy.  And  I  might  say,  also,  that  this  involves  per- 
sonnel matters,  not  a  security  matter.  In  brief,  he  said  that  the  dis- 
charge was  the  result  of  a  call  he  had  gotten  from  the  Pentagon, 
ordering  him  to  discharge — in  other  words,  to  remove  him  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  tlie  Army.  I  felt  that  was  significant,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  legal  counsel  for  the  Army  had  spent  the  previous 
afternoon  with  General  Zwicker. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  you  are  permitted  to  tell  what  this  agent 
reported  to  you — not  your  own  feeling.    Let  us  get  one  thing  at  a  time. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  WiLLLVMS.  Now,  your  session,  your  open  session,  recessed, 
according  to  the  record,  at  12 :15 ;  is  that  right? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Williams.  And  that  was  the  last  open  session  that  day  by  the 
investigating  committee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  General  Zwicker  did  not  testify  until  much  later  in 
the  afternoon ;  is  that  correct  ? 


190  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes. 

If  I  can  explain  why  the  hearin<r  was  held  up,  I  went  over  to  the 
hospital  and  arranged  for  a  different  room  for  Jean  and  got  a  report 
on  her  injury  from  the  doctor,  discussed  the  matters  in  detail  with 
the  doctor,  which  took  some  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  So  that  General  Zwicker,  in  fact,  did  not  take  the 
stand  that  afternoon  until  4 :  80  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  apparently  is  correct. 

Mr.  Williams.  Can  you  tell  us  who  was  there  present? 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  record  shows  present:  Koy  Cohn,  chief 
counsel ;  Daniel  Buckley,  assistant  counsel ;  Harold  Rainville,  admin- 
istrative assistant  to  Senator  Dirksen;  Robert  Jones,  administrative 
assistant  to  Senator  Potter,  and  James  N.  Juliana,  investigator,  and 
my  memory  would  bear  that  out. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  Senator 

The  Chairman.  May  I  inquire? 

I  thought  the  witness  said  Senator  Dirksen  was  there;  is  that  right? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No.  Dirksen's  administrative  assistant  was 
there. 

The  Chairman.  I  beg  your  pardon.    I  misunderstood  you. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Rainville  was  there  for  Senator  Dirksen,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention,  Senator,  for  what  I  shall  call,  for 
purpose  of  identification,  the  first  key  question  that  was  asked  of 
General  Zwicker,  and  I  direct  your  attention  to  page  146  and  to  the 
question : 

You  know — 

and  I  am  quoting  you — 

that  somebody  signed  or  authorized  an  honorable  discharge  for  this  man,  knowing 
that  he  was  a  fifth-amendment  Communist;  do  you  not? 

Now,  did  you  get  an  immediate  response  to  that  question? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did  not.  The  answer  I  got  was  he  thinks 
he  is.  I  asked  him  whether  he  knew  the  discharge  was  signed,  knowing 
that  he  was  a  fifth-amendment  Communist.     His  answer  was : 

I  know  that  an  honorable  discharge  was  signed  for  the  man. 

No  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  I  tliink  this  is  very  important,  so  I  want  to 
ask  you  some  questions  about  the  general  context  of  this  line  of  inter- 
rogation ;  but,  before  I  do,  I  want  you  to  point  out,  if  you  will,  Senator, 
to  the  committee  where  you  got  the  first  answer  to  this  question. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  believe  it  is  over  on  page  148,  where  I  said — 
and  I  am  not  reading  the  entire  question,  just  the  pertinent  part : 

Now,  is  it  your  testimony  now  that  at  tlie  time  you  read  the  stories  about 
Major  Peress'tliat  you  did  not  know  that  he  had  refused  to  answer  questions 
before  this  committee  about  his  Communist  activities? 

General  Zwicker.  1  am  sure  I  iiad  that  impresison. 

That  was  about  a  page  and  a  half  later,  thereafter,  of  cross-examina- 
tion, 

Mr.  Williams.  How  much  later  in  point  of  time  was  it  that  you  got 
your  answer? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  I  just,  Mr.  Williams,  point  out  some- 
thing which  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  this?  On  page  146 — I  wonder 
if  the  committee  has  a  copy  of  the  testimony. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  191 

The  Chairman.  We  are  short  of  copies.    I  understand  they  are  out 
of  print,  and  we  haven't  been  able  to  get  them. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Let  me 

Mr.  Williams.  I  think  it  is  important- 


Senator  McCarthy.  I  wish  the  committee  had  copies  of  this. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  would  like  to  show  the 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  sorry. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Case. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  we  have  the  answers  to  the  ques- 
tions ? 

A  few  moments  ago  the  Senator  said  he  received  an  evasive  answer. 
It  seems  to  me  the  committee  should  have  the  benefit  of  a  direct  answer, 
whatever  it  may  be. 

Mr.  Williams.  We  are  going  to  go  through  that. 

Senator  Case.  And  let  the  committee  judge  whether  or  not  it  was 
evasive. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  inform  us  what  page 

Mr.  Williams.  I  have  directed  the  Senator's  attention  at  the  out- 
set to  page  146,  and  the  question  I  had  reference  to  in  my  question 
is  a  question  that  appears  at  about  two-thirds  of  the  way  down  that 
page  in  the  printed  record,  quoting  the  Chairman : 

You  know  that  somebody  signed  or  authorized  an  honorable  discharge  for 
this  man,  Ivuowing  that  he  was  a  fifth-amendment  Communist,  do  you  not? 

General  Zwicker's  answer  is : 

I  know  that  an  honorable  discharge  was  signed  for  the  man. 

That  is  the  direct  answer,  Senator  Case. 

Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you,  if  you  will 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  think  I  should  read  the  next  few  ques- 
tions  

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Senator  McCarthy.  To  put  this  in  context. 

Question : 

The  day  the  honorable  discharge  was  signed  were  you  aware  of  the  fact 

Senator  Stennis.  Pardon  me.    Wliere  are  you? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Page  146.    It  is  the  last  one-fifth  of  the  page. 

The  first  question  was : 

Do  you  know  that  somebody  signed  it? 

The  question  I  am  reading  is : 

The  day  the  honorable  discharge  was  signed  were  you  aware  of  the  fact  that 
he  had  appeared  before  our  committee? 
General  Zwicker.  I  was. 

And  had  refused  to  answer  certain  questions? 
No,  sir ;  not  specifically  on  answering  any  questions. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  have  the  committee — this  will  show  why  it 
was  necessary  to  rather  vigorously  cross-examine  this  man — jump 
over  to  this  question : 

Did  you  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about  his  Communist 
activities? 

Specifically,  I  don't  believe  so. 


192  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Williams.  Here. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Oh,  yes.  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  skipped  one. 
One  of  the  first  we  have  is  on  page  146.  He  says,  "No,  sir",  when  asked 
whether  he  knew  this  man  had  refused  to  answer  questions. 

Then  on  page  147,  about  10  or  12  questions  later : 

But  now  you  indicate  that  you  did  know  he  refused  to^ 
No. 

Mr.  Williams  (reading)  : 

But  now  you  indicate  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  refused  to  tell  about  his 
Communist  activities;  is  that  correct? 

The  answer  is : 

I  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  for  the  committee. 

Senator  McCarthy.  So  that  here  he  changes  his  story.  First  he 
says: 

No,  sir ;  I  didn't  know  he  refused  to  answer  questions. 

Then  the  next  question: 

Did  you  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about  his  Communist 
activities'? 
Specifically,  I  don't  believe  so. 

Then  a  number  of  questions  later  I  said  to  him,  in  cross-exami- 
nation : 

Now,  is  it  your  testimony  now  that  at  the  time  you  read  the  stories  on  Major 
Peress  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  had  refused  to  answer  questions  before  this 
committee  about  his  Communist  activities? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sure  I  had  that  impression. 

So,  you  find  first  the  General  says : 

I  didn't  know  he  refused  to  answer  any  question. 

Then  he  says : 

Yes,  I  knew  he  refused  to  answer  questions,  but  not  about  Communist  activ- 
ities. 

And  then,  finally,  after  being  pressed,  he  says : 

Yes,  I  am  sure  I  had  the  impression  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about 
Communist  activities. 

I  merely  cite  that.  Senators,  so  you  will  realize  the  difficulty  I  had 
with  this  witness  and  why  it  was  necessary  to  cross-examine  him  in 
detail  when  he  changed  his  story  three  times.  It  was  important  for 
me  to  get  the  facts  here. 

Mr.  WiLLiAiMs.  Senator,  I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  page  147, 
and  also  members  of  the  committee,  about  one-third  of  the  way  down 
the  printed  page  where  the  chairman  asks : 

Did  you  have  that  general  picture? 

General  Zwicker  answered : 

I  believe  I  remember  reading  in  the  paper  that  he  had  taken  refuge  in  the  fifth 
amendment  to  avoid  answering  questions  before  the  committee. 

And  what  were  the  next  questions.  Senator  ? 
Senator  McCarthy.  I  said : 

About  communism. 

The  answer : 

I  am  not  too  certain  about  that. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  193 

Do  you  want  me  to  read  on  here,  Mr.  Williams  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes. 

Senator  McCarthy  (reading)  : 

Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  have  enough  interest  in  the  case,  General, 
the  case  of  this  major  who  was  in  your  command,  to  get  some  idea  of  what 
questions  he  had  refused  to  answer?    Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  that  is  not  putting  it  quite  right,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chaieman.  You  put  it  right,  then. 

And  here  is  the  answer : 

I  have  great  interest  in  all  of  the  oflScers  of  my  conunand,  with  whatever 
they  do. 

Let's  sticlj  to  fifth-amendment  Communists.  Let's  stick  to  him.  You  told 
us  vou  read  the  press  releases. 

I  did. 

But  now  you  indicate  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  refused  to  tell  about 
his  Communist  activities;  is  that  correct? 

Listen  to  this  answer,  if  you  will,  especially  you  lawyers  on  the 
committee : 

I  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  for  the  committee. 
Did  you  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about  his   Communist 
activities? 

Answer : 

Specifically,  I  don't  believe  so. 

Then,  shifting  over  to  the  next  page,  when  asked  practically  the 
same  question,  he  says : 

I  am  sure  I  had  that  impression. 

So,  you  have  a  general  here  who,  for  some  unusual  reason,  is  com- 
pletely evasive.    First  he  says : 

I  didn't  know  he  refused  to  answer  questions. 

Then  he  says : 

Yes,  I  know  he  refused  to  answer  questions,  but  not  about  communism. 

And  then  later  he  says : 

Yes,  I  knew  he  refused  to  answer  questions  about  communism. 

Mr.  Wnj^iAMS.  Now,  would  you  tell  the  committee  approximately 
how  much  time  elapsed  between  the  time  you  first  put  the  question 
and  the  time  that  General  Zwicker  answered,  "I  am  sure  I  had  that 
impression"  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  couldn't  ^ive  you  that  in  time,  Mr.  Williams. 
It  was  a  long,  laborious  truth-pullmg  job. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  General  Zwicker,  in  response  to  a  question 
that  you  propounded  to  him,  said  that  he  had  read  the  press  releases  on 
the  Peress  case  after  Peress'  appearance  in  executive  session. 

Can  you  tell  the  committee  when  those  press  releases  appeared? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  was  prior  to  the  press  release,  I  believe,  of 
February  1.  The  press  releases  dealt  almost  exclusively  with  his  re- 
fusal to  answer  questions  about  Communist  activities  before  the  com- 
mittee. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  inquire  for  the  purpose  of  the  record,  what 
press  releases  are  you  referring  to  ?    Whose  press  releases  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  referring,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  letter 
which  I  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  Stevens  in  which  I  pointed 


194  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

out  all  of  the  facts,  asked  for  his  court  martial  and  also,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, we  have  followed  the  practice  wherever  in  executive  session  there 
are  a  number  of  individuals  present  where  there  is  a  lawyer  present 
who  can  go  on  and  give  the  story  of  calling  in  the  press  and  giving  the 
press  the  general  picture  without  giving  the  name  of  the  witness. 
However,  Peress  had  given  his  name  so  that  his  name  was  in  the  press 
on  the  30th  of  January  and  the  press  carried  the  story  about  all  of  his 
refusals  to  answer.     So  there  were  two  stories. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  absolutely  fair  about  it,  do  you  know  whether 
or  not  the  newspapers  published  in  full  your  press  release? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  saw  the  press  releases  and  they  published 
them  in  detail,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  papers?  Of  course,  we  have  a  lot  of 
papers. 

Senator  McCarthy.  All  the  wire  services  carried  the  stories  and 
I  think  they  carried  very  fair  and  very  complete  stories. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  supply  the  general  with  copies  of  these 
press  releases?    I  mean,  General  Zwicker? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No  ;  he  said  he  had  read  the  press  releases. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  I  am  asking  you  these  questions  is  that 
sometimes  people  are  supplied  with  a  copy  of  the  press  release  by  the 
person  who  makes  the  press  release  and  they  get  it  that  way;  at  other 
times  they  probably  have  to  wait  and  get  it  in  the  paper  and  some- 
times the  papers  do  not  carry  in  full  all  the  press  releases — at  least,  I 
have  had  that  experience. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  reason  Mr.  Peress  was 
given  no  press  releases  was 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  mean  Major  Peress;  I  mean  General 
Zwicker. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  am  sorry — was  because  I  had  addressed  my 
letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Army;  asked  him  for  a  court-martial 
of  not  only  Peress  but  all  of  those  who  were  responsible  for  his  pro- 
motion, his  plush-duty  orders,  knowing  that  he  was  a  Communist; 
and  I  did  not  write  to  Zwicker  because  I  could  not  conceive.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, Zwicker  taking  it  upon  himself  to  give  an  honorable  discharge 
to  a  man  guilty  of  a  felony,  guilty  of  Communist  activities. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  witness  and  the 
Chair  to  the  question  at  page  148,  approximately  one-third  of  the  way 
down  the  printed  page: 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  also  read  the  stories  about  my  letter  to  Secretary  of 
the  Army  Stevens  in  which  I  requested,  or  rather,  suggested  that  this  man  be 
court-martialed,  and  that  anyone  that  protected  him  or  covered  up  for  him  be 
courc-martialed  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  what  you  based  your  answer  on  that  Gen- 
eral Zwicker  had  seen  the  press  release? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Not  only  that  press  story  but  the  previous 
press  story. 

Mr.  WiLLTAiMS.  I  did  not  say  Peress  story. 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  press;  not  only  this  press  story  but  there 
was  a  previous  press  story  about  Peress  in  which  the  newspapers  car- 
ried the  information  about  his  refusal  to  answer  on  the  grounds  of 
the  fifth  amendment. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  195 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  Senator,  to  a 
(question  at  page  148,  and  I  am  now  referring  to  the  last  third  of  the 
page,  of  the  printed  record. 

Mr.  Cohn  asked : 

Who  did  you  talk  to?    You  talked  to  somebody? 

And  the  answer  that  is  reported  here  emanating  from  General 
Zwicker : 

No;  I  did  not. 

Was  that  in  conformity  with  or  at  war  with  the  report  that  you 
had  received  from  your  investigator,  Mr.  Juliana? 

Senator  Ervin.  That  seems  to  be  a  conclusion  rather  than  evidence. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  say  to  the  Senator  and  also  to  Mr.  Williams 
that  considerable  of  the  material  that  the  Senator  is  bringing  before 
use  is  alignment  and  I  have  not  ordered  him  to  desist  on  that.  We 
would  like  to  get  a  straight-out  statement  on  evidence,  if  we  can,  but 
I  realize  the  tendency  is  for  lawyers  to  argue  and  to  testify.  I  would 
be  guilty  of  that  myself  in  the  same  position. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  do  not  intend  to  argue  the  case  at  this  time,  I 
assure  you,  but  I  think  it  is  terribly  important  here  for  this  witness 
to  let  us  know  what  the  atmosphere  was  of  this  proceeding  as  he  went 
along;  and  to  point  out  why  it  was  necessary  to  cross-examine  this 
witness  vigorously  as  he  saw  it  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  permit  him  to  relate  the  facts.  However, 
we  are  not  inclined  to  be  too  strict  with  the  interpretation  of  the  rule 
but  we  think  we  ought  to  reasonably  keep  within  it. 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  answer  is :  This  is  in  conflict  not  only  with 
the  report  received  from  Mr.  Juliana  but  also  in  conflict  with  the 
testimony  of  Major  Peress  who  testified  in  the  record  which  you 
have  before  you  that  he  went  in  to  see  Zwicker,  and  that  he  asked  for 
an  investigation. 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  He  is  contrasting  this  evidence  with  something  else 
out  of  the  record. 

Senator  McCarthy.  The  Peress  testimony  is  in  the  record. 

Senator  Ervin.  Let  him  call  our  attention  to  these  things  and  let 
us  draw  the  conclusions. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do,  Senator  Ervin, 
but  it  is  perfectly  impossible  to  portiuxy  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
cross-examiner  unless  we  ask  him  the  questions  which  motivated  his 
interrogation  and  which  motivated  his  cross-examination  of  General 
Zwicker  as  we  are  proceeding. 

I  know  of  no  other  way  to  put  defensive  material  in  on  this  issue. 
So  I  must  ask  him  about  evasiveness  on  the  part  of  General  Zwicker 
and  about  the  conflicts  in  the  testimony  of  General  Zwicker  with  other 
sworn  testimony  in  the  record  and  with  the  report  that  he  had  received 
about  what  General  Zwicker  would  testify  to  when  he  was  called  before 
the  committee. 

I  am  sure  that  Senator  Ervin,  as  a  lawyer,  has  tried  many  cases  and 
has  sat  on  the  bench  and  can  appreciate  what  goes  on  in  the  mind 
of  an  examiner  when  he  is  confronted  with  answers  which  he  is  led  to 
believe  which  would  be  otherwise. 


196  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  Ervin.  He  has  testified  as  to  what  he  had  been  led  to  believe. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Let  me  read  the  record. 

Senator  Ervin.  Wasn't  the  statement  made  ?  I  think  we  can  assume 
that  we  have  enough  memory  to  remember  some  of  these  things. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Let  me  read  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment ;  let  Senator  Ervin  finish. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator  Ervin,  the  reason  I  am  calling  this  to  your 
attention  is  that  the  part  of  the  record  which  we  are  now  about  to 
offer  has  not  heretofore  been  introduced  in  evidence,  so  I  don't  assume 
that  you  have  read  it. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Ervin,  will  you  get  a  little  closer  to  your 
microphone  ?  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  get  your  words.  The  microphones 
are  not  too  sensitive  and  it  means  we  have  to  get  rather  close  to  them. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  may  have  misconstrued  the  evidence  but  what  I 
understood  was — you  were  asking  the  Senator  whether  a  certain  thing 
was  in  harmony  with  what  he  had  been  led  by  Mr.  Juliana  to  expect 
the  witnesss  would  testify  to. 

Mr.  Williams.  That  was  one  of  my  questions.  Senator.  The  ques- 
tion now,  what  I  am  addressing  the  witness'  attention  to  is  the  con- 
flict between  this  testimony  and  the  testimony  of  the  witness  who  had 
testified  just  previously  to  him. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  are  putting  both  together,  as  I  understood  it, 
though.  The  point  I  was  making,  the  things  you  already  testified  you 
would  agree  for  us  to  draw  conclusions  as  to. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  appreciate  your  ability  to  draw  the  conclusions  if 
the  part  I  had  reference  to  were  in  the  record,  but  it  is  not  in  here ; 
that  is  why  I  want  to  introduce  it  at  this  time. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  I  read  the  Peress  testimony  that  I  re- 
ferred to? 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  going  to  offer  that  in  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wliy  not  do  it  now  and  we  will  have  it  before  us. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  what  I  want  to  do. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Can  I  read  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  read  it  all  without  interruptions  so  we 
can  get  it ;  then  you  can  make  your  comment. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  As  I  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  was  in  conflict 
with  Peress's  testimony  and  I  would  like  to  read  that  testimony  now 

on  page  125. 

The  Chairihan.  Just  a  moment,  now;  page  125.    That  was  m  the 

public  hearings? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Public  session. 

The  Chairman.  Was  General  Zwicker  there? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  this  testimony  was  given  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  the  witness.  I  was  asking  the  question  of 
the  witness.  Mr.  Williams. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  there. 

I  am  reading,  Mr.  Chairman,  from  the  third  question  from  the 
bottom. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  197 

« 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  the  highest  ranliing  oflScer  with  whom  you  spoke  after 
your  appearance  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  Peress.  General  Zwicker. 

The  Chairman.  General  Zwicker?  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  Gen- 
eral Zwicker? 

And  the  record  sliowr:  that  the  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel. 
He  says : 

Would  you  repeat  that  question,  please? 

The  Chairman.  Will  the  reporter  read  the  question? 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 

which  would  have  been,  "What  conversation  did  you  have  with  General 

Zwicker  ? " 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  recall  the  exact  word-for-word  conversation.  I  requested 
of  General  Zwicker,  after  the  hearing  before  you  on  January  30,  when  I  saw  him 
on  February  1,  that  an  inquiry  be  made  into  these  charges,  that  the  newspapers 
had  lambasted  me  with  on  Sunday  and  Monday. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  him  whether  or  not  you  were  a  Communist? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds 

The  Chairman.  You  wanted  an  inquiry  made  as  to  whether  or  not  you  are  a 
Communist;  is  that  correct? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  wanted  an  inquiry  of  my  conduct  at  Camp  Kilmer. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  want  the  inquiry  to  include  the  question  of  whether 
or  not  you  had  been  holding  Communist  meetings  at  your  home,  whether  you  had 
attended  a  Communist  leadership  school,  whether  you  had  been  recruiting  military 
personnel  there  into  the  Communist  conspiracy?    Did  you  want  that  included? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Again  the  record  shows  the  witness  conferred, 
with  his  counsel. 

Then  to  go  on  reading  on  page  126,  just  about  the  middle  of  the 
page,  Mr.  Peress  said : 

I  could  not  tell  them  what  to  inquire  about,  but  I  asked  for  an  inquiry  of 
the  charges  generally.  I  didn't  specify  as  to  which  charges  to  inquire  into  and 
which  not  to  inquire  into. 

And  Mr.  Chairman,  I  pointed  that  out,  because  this  is  important, 
if  I  may,  not  merely  because  it  is  in  contradiction,  if  I  may,  with 
Zwicker's  testimony,  but  also  this  indicates  that  if  Peress  were  not 
perjuring  himself,  then  he  was  not  asking  for 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  it  not  for  the  committee  to  de- 
termine for  what  it  is  important?  Let  us  get  the  evidence  and  let 
the  committee  draw  the  conclusions. 

Mr.  WiLiAMS.  We  are  anxious  to  call  these  things  to  the  commit- 
tee's attention.  Senator,  so  that  the  committee  can  better  understand 
what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  cross-examiner  as  he  pursued  his  in- 
quiry with  this  witness. 

The  Chairman.  Have  the  Senator  finish  the  reading  of  the  testi- 
mony that  he  wants  to  read.  I  suggested  that  and  I  thought  that 
was  to  be  the  arrangement,  that  he  would  read  it  through  and  then 
make  such  comments  as  would  be  within  the  rule  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  all  of  the  Peress  testimony  that  I 
have  in  mind. 

If  I  may  say  this,  Senator:  In  answer  to  a  question  as  to  why  I 
commented  on  this,  I  have  been  accused  of  the 

Senator  Case.  I  beg  the  pardon  of  the  Senator.  I  did  not  ask  why 
you  commented  on  it.  I  just  suggested  that  the  comment  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  conclusion  and  the  committee  should  draw  the  conclusions. 


198  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  McCarthy.  Would  you  bear  with  me  for  one  minute, 
Senator  Case? 

I  have  been  accused  of  abusing  General  Zwicker.  I  am  showing 
here  that  his  testimony  is  in  complete  conflict  with  other  testimony 
taken  under  oath  that  day,  and  in  conflict  with  the  reports  gotten 
from  the  investigation. 

Senator  Case.  This  Senator  and  the  committee  is  interested  in  see- 
ing the  conflicts. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Very  w^ell. 

Mr.  Williams.  Senator,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  now,  sir,  to 
page  149  of  the  record,  at  the  bottom,  and  I  ask  you  to  read  that 
question  and  the  answer  that  immediately  follows. 

Senator  McCarthy  (reading)  : 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  this  question :  If  this  man — 

meaning  Peress 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  please  indicate  where  you  are  starting? 
Senator  McCarthy.  The  last  question  on  page  149 : 

Let  me  ask  this  question  :  If  this  man — 

meaning  Peress — 

after  the  order  came  up,  after  the  order  of  the  18th  came  up,  prior  to  his  getting 
an  honorable  discharge,  were  guilty  of  some  crime,  let  us  say  that  he  held  up 
a  bank  or  stole  an  automobile — and  you  heard  of  that  the  day  before — let  us  say 
you  heard  of  it  the  same  day  that  you  heard  of  my  letter — could  you  then  have 
taken  steps  to  prevent  his  discharge,  or  would  he  have  automatically  been 
discharged? 

General  Zwicker.  I  would  have  definitely  taken  steps  to  prevent  discharge. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  Senator,  pursuing  this  so  that  we  have  the 
natural  course  of  your  line  of  interrogation,  I  want  to  direct  your 
attention  to  the  question  that  is  propounded  one-fourth  of  the  way 
down  page  150,  beginning  with  the  last  sentence. 

Senator  McCarthy.  "You  said"?     Oh,  I  see,  I  will  read  that  now: 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  say  be  went  out  and  stole  $50  the  night  before. 

General  Zwicker.  He  wouldn't  have  been  discharged. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  stealing  $50  is  more  serious  than  being  a  traitor 
to  the  country  as  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy? 

General  Zwicker.  That,  sir,  was  not  my  decision. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  if  you  learned  that  he  stole  $50,  you  would  have  pre- 
vented his  discharge.  You  did  learn  something  much  more  serious  than  that.  You 
learned  that  he  had  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist.  You  learned 
that  the  chairman  of  a  Senate  committee  suggested  he  be  court  martialed.  And 
you  say  if  he  had  stolen  $50,  he  would  not  have  gotten  the  honorable  discharge. 
But  merely  being  a  part  of  a  Communist  conspii'acy,  and  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  asking  that  he  be  court  martialed,  would  not  give  you  grounds  for 
holding  up  his  discharge.    Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  Under  the  terms  of  this  letter,  that  is  correct,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  thereafter,  did  you  ask  the  general  whether 
there  was  anything — — 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  I  read  the  next  question,  Mr.  Williams; 
I  think  it  is  pertinent. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy.  This  is  the  statement  by  the  chairman : 

That  letter  says  nothing  about  stealing  $50,  and  it  does  not  say  anything  about 
being  a  Communist.  It  does  not  say  anything  about  his  appearance  before  our 
committee.    He  appeared  before  our  committee  after  that  order  was  made  out. 

Do  you  think  you  sound  a  bit  ridiculous,  General,  when  you  say  that  for  $50, 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  199 

you  would  prevent  his  being  discharged,  but  for  being  a  part  of  the  conspiracy 
to  destroy  this  country,  you  could  not  prevent  his  discharge? 

And  may  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  he  looked  extremely  ridicu- 
lous. 

Mr.  WiLT.TAMS.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  there  was  anything  in  the 
letter  on  the  Peress  di'scliaroe  which  gave  him  authorization  to  hold 
up  the  discharge  for  criminal  conduct? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment  before  you  answer  that.  The  letter 
itself  will  be  the  best  evidence.    Do  you  have  a  copy  of  that  letter? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  one  offered  to  you  at  that  time  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  was  allowed  to  read  it  at  that  time.  I  think 
it  was  handed  back  to  the  (ireneral. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  receive  it  in  evidence?  You  did  not 
make  it  a  part  of  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  The  general  was  asked  about  it  and  answered  fully. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  part  of  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Ordinarily  it  is  better  if  we  have  the  letter  so  that 
we  can  know  what  it  is  about. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  wish  we  had  it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  possibly  we  can  get  a  copy  of  it.  I  thought 
probably  the  Senator  had  received  it  at  that  time. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  do  not  believe  it  was  produced. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  would  certainly  appreciate  it  if  the  chairman 
would  exercise  his  prerogative  in  obtaining  a  copy  of  the  letter  and 
placing  it  into  this  record. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  attempt  to  get  a  copy  of  that  letter  and 
will  put  it  in  the  record  as  soon  as  we  find  it. 

Mr.  WiLLL\MS.  Senator,  without  going  over  this  transcript  question 
by  question,  let  me  ask  you  ihis  by  way  of  recap  and  by  way  of  sum- 
mary :  Was  it  General  Zwicker's  position  as  he  testified  here  that  if 
he  had  learned  that  Major  Peress  had  stolen  $50,  he  could  have 
stopped  his  discharge  and  would  have  stopped  liis  discharge,  but  the 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Communist 
Party  and  had  falsified  his  Army  affidavits  on  that  subject,  that  knowl- 
edge was  not  enough  to  preclude  the  honorable  discharge  that  wa? 
given  to  him  on  February  1  ? 

Is  that  a  fair  statement  of  his  position  on  this  record  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  calling  for  the  conclusion  of  a  witness  and 
is  more  or  less  in  the  nature  of  argument. 

Can  we  get  to  the  facts  as  they  appeared  ? 

I  suggest.  Mr.  Williams,  we  ought  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  facts 
and  not  make  arguments. 

Mr.  AViixiAMS.  Mr  Chairman,  the  trouble  with  these  facts  are  that 
you  cannot  state  them  without  their  sounding  like  a  powerful  argu- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  record  itself,  I  think,  is  a  pretty  good 
evidence  and  is  probably  the  best  evidence  as  to  what  was  said  and 
done.  If  there  was  anything  else  that  was  done  or  said  that  does 
not  appear  in  the  record,  that  can  be  given  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Williams.  AVhat  I  was  trying  to  do  was  to  cover  a  couple  of 
pages  of  this  colloquy  by  one  yes  or  no  answer  and  then  get  to  the  part 
in  dispute  here. 

The  Chairman.  Obviously  it  calls  for  an  argument. 


200  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Senator  McCarthy.  Could  I  read  the  question  that  perhaps  answers 
Mr.  Williams'  question  which  appears  at  the  bottom  of  page  151,  the 
last  question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  read  it. 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  reads  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Let's  say  one  of  the  trusted  privates  in  your  command  came 
in  to  you  and  said,  "General,  I  was  just  downtown  and  I  have  evidence  that 
Major  Peress  brolve  into  a  store  and  stole  $50."  You  would  not  discharge  him 
until  you  had  checked  the  facts,  seen  whether  or  not  the  private  was  telling 
the  truth,  and  seen  whether  or  not  he  had  stolen  the  $50? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  don't  believe  I  would. 

I  would  make  a  check,  certainly,  to  check  the  story. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  this.  Senator:  Did  there 
come  a  time  when  you  asked  General  Zwicker  to  state  his  position  on 
the  overall  policy  which  permitted  this  kind  of  discharge  to  be  made 
in  the  light  of  the  known  facts  at  the  time  it  was  made  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did. 

Mr.  WiTLiAMS.  I  direct  your  attention  to  page  152  and  I  ask  you 
if  you  will  read  that  question  which  immediately  precedes  the  colloquy 
which  is  in  dispute  here. 

Senator  McCarthy.  You  refer  to  the  last  question  on  page  152  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCarthy  (reading) : 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  assume  that  John  Jones  is  a  major  in  the  United 
States  Army.  Let  us  assume  that  there  is  sworn  testimony  to  the  effect  that 
he  is  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  has  attended  Communist  leadership 
schools.  Let  us  assume  that  Maj.  John  Jones  is  under  oath  before  a  committee 
and  says,  "I  cannot  tell  you  the  truth  about  these  charges  because,  if  I  did,  I 
fear  that  might  tend  to  incriminate  me."  Then  let  us  say  that  General  Smith 
was  responsible  for  this  man  I'eceiving  an  honorable  discharge,  knowing  these 
facts.  Do  you  think  that  General  Smith  should  be  removed  from  the  military 
or  do  you  think  that  he  should  be  kept  on  in  it? 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  you  add  to  the  hypothesis  of  that  question  on 
page  153? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  added  to  it  the  fact  that  we  are  referring  to 
General  Smith,  who  originated  the  order  directing  the  separation  and 
not  a  general  who  was  merely  following  out  orders. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  ask  at  this  point,  so  it  will  be  clear  as  we 
go  along,  Senator,  since  we  do  not  have  the  letter  here,  did  not  the 
letter  direct  General  Zwicker  to  release  this  man  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  directed  honorable  discharge  for  this  man 
within  a  period  of  90  days.  It  gave,  it  apparently  gave  Peress  the 
discretion  to  decide  when  he  would  be  released,  and  that  is  why,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Peress  when  he  said  he  went  in. 

I  did  not  ask  for  his  release.    I  asked  for  an  inquiry. 

Zwicker  knew  that  there  could  be  no  inquiry  after  his  release. 
Therefore,  it  was  not  Peress  who  asked  for  the  discharge,  if  we  can 
believe  Peress. 

Of  course,  I  might  say  I  do  not  believe  a  Communist  under  oath. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  hardly  material  here.  Probably  a  lot  of 
people  would  agree  with  you  on  that.  What  we  are  trying  to  get  at 
are  the  material  facts  in  this  inquiry. 

Mr.  Williams.  This  question  that  you  posed  to  General  Zwicker 
contained  the  hypothesis  at  page  152  and  an  added  hypothesis  on  page 
153. 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  right. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  201 

Mr.  Williams.  You  are  asking  him  about  liis  attitude  toward  a 
general  who  originated  the  order  that  gave  an  honorable  discharge 
to  a  known  Communist  after  he  had  taken  the  fifth  amendment  before 
your  committee;  is  that  right? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  General  Zw^cker  answer  that  question  immedi- 
ately ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No;  he  claimed  he  did  not  understand  it. 

You  will  notice  on  page  153,  let  me  see : 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  repeat  it. 
And  then  a  few  lines  down  further  it  says : 
(The  question  was  reread  by  the  reporter.) 

So  that  it  was  repeated  twice. 

Mr.  Williams.  This  was  the  third  time ;  was  it  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes;  this  was  the  third  time  it  was  repeated. 

Mr.  Williams.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question : 

What  was  General  Zwicker's  answer  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Gen- 
eral who  originated  the  order,  the  policymaking  general  who  origi- 
nated the  order  giving  the  honorable  discharge  to  an  officer  who  was 
a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  who  had  taken  the  fifth  amend- 
ment while  in  the  Army  and  before  his  discharge,  what  was  his  an- 
swer with  respect  to  what  should  be  done  concerning  that  situation, 
that  particular  general? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Williams,  let  me  say  this  question  does 
not  contain  all  the  facts  I  asked  the  General.    I  asked  him : 

*  *  *  Let  us  assume  that  there  is  sworn  testimony  to  the  effect  that  he  is 
part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  has  attended  Communist  leadership  schools. 
Let  us  assume  that  Maj.  John  Jones  is  under  oath  before  a  committee  and  says, 
"I  cannot  tell  you  the  truth  about  these  charges  because,  if  I  did,  I  fear  that 
might  tend  to  incriminate  me." 

And  then  I  say : 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  say  he  is  the  man  who  signed  the  orders.  Let  us  say 
General  Smith  is  the  man  who  originated  the  order. 

I  asked  whether  he  should  be  removed  from  the  military. 
And  then  down  in  the  middle  of  page  153  the  answer  of  General 
Zwicker  is  given  as: 

I  do  not  think  he  should  be  removed  from  the  military. 

Mr.  Williams.  "Wliat  did  you  say  in  response  to  that?  Will  you 
read  that? 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  be  clear  on  that.  Wlio  are  you  speaking 
of  who  should  be  removed  from  the  military?  Is  this  Peress  or  the 
General  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  said : 

Let  us  assume  that  John  Jones  is  a  major  in  the  United  States  Army.  Let 
us  assume  that  there  is  sworn  testimony  to  the  effect  that  he  is  part  of  the 
Communist  conspiracy,  has  attended  Communist  leadership  schools.  Let  us 
assume  that  Maj.  John  Jones  is  under  oath  before  a  committee  and  says,  "I 
cannot  tell  you  the  truth  about  these  charges  because,  if  I  did,  I  fear  that 
might  tend  to  incriminate  me."  Then  let  us  say  that  General  Smith  was  re- 
sponsible for  this  man  receiving  an  honorable  discharge  knowing  these  facts. 
Do  you  think  that  General  Smith  should  be  removed  from  the  military  or  do 
you  think  he  should  be  kept  on  in  it? 


202  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  Tliat  is  what  I  wanted  cleared  up,  whether  you  were 
referring  to  the  Major  or  General  Smith  being  removed. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  refer  to  the  General.  I  make  it  clear  on  page 
153  that  I  am  not  referring  to  a  general  obeying  orders  but  one 
originating  orders. 

The  Chairman.  The  purpose  of  that  question,  obviously,  was  to 
get  the  attitude  of  General  Zwicker  with  respect  to  some  other  general. 

Senator  McCarthy.  It  was  to  find  out,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether 
there  was  Communist  infiltration,  whether  it  was  condoned,  whether 
the  commanding  officer  condoned  it  and  allowed  an  honorable  dis- 
charge. 

I  wanted  to  get  his  attitude,  and  that  is  part  of  the  Government 
Operations  Committee,  to  investigate  efficiency,  economy ;  well,  intelli- 
gence, if  you  please,  of  those  operating  in  the  Government  at  all  levels, 
and  I  was  concerned  to  find  out  why  they  allowed  it  to  continue. 
I  wanted  to  get  the  attitude  of  this  general  who  was  the  commanding 
officer. 

And  he  said : 

I  do  not  think  he  should  be  removed  from  the  military. 

And  then  you  asked  for  my  answer  to  that.  I  said,  which  appears 
near  the  bottom  of  page  153 : 

The  Chairman.  Then,  General,  you  should  be  removed  from  any  command. 
Any  man  who  has  been  given  the  honor  of  being  promoted  to  general  and  who 
says,  "I  will  protect  another  general  who  protected  Communists"  is  not  fit  to 
wear  that  uniform.  General.  I  think  it  is  a  tremendous  disgrace  to  the  Army 
to  have  this  sort  of  thing  given  to  the  public.  I  intend  to  give  it  to  them.  I 
have  a  duty  to  do  that.  I  intend  to  repeat  to  the  press  exactly  what  you  said. 
So  you  know  that.     You  will  be  back  here.  General. 

Mr.  Williams.  Now  then,  did  you  say,  "You  are  not  fit  to  wear 
the  uniform"  ? 

Senator  McCarthy.  No,  I  said  he  was  not  fit  to  wear  the  uniform  of 
a  general,  and  I  think  he  was  not.  I  think  any  man  who  says  that 
it  is  right  to  give  honorable  discharges  to  known  Communists  is  not 
fit  to  wear  the  uniform  of  a  general. 

I  said  it  then.  I  wall  say  it  now.  I  will  say  it  again.  I  feel  that 
as  strongly  as  I  feel  anything. 

Mr.  Williams.  Has  this  statement  been  quoted,  or  should  I  say  mis- 
quoted, to  read  frequently  "Is  not  fit  to  wear  the  uniform"? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  it  has  been  quoted  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Williams.  By  that  statement  were  you  impunging  his  judg- 
ment, or  were  you  impunging  liis  loyalty? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Not  his  loyalty.  He  might  be  completely  loyal 
and  feel  that  Communists  could  get  honorable  discharges. 

I  felt  that  his  judgment  was  bad  beyond  words  when  we  have  such 
a  tremendous  military  force  spending  billions  of  dollars  to  defend  this 
country  against  communism,  and  then  have  a  general  say  in  effect:  "It 
is  all  riffht  to  give  Communists  honorable  discharges." 

Mr.  Williams.  Did  General  Zwicker  thereafter  in  the  interrogation 
change  his  position? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  he  did. 

Mr.  Williams.  Would  you  point  that  out  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  203 

Senator  McCarthy.  On  page  154  he  says,  or,  rather,  I  said : 

Do  you  think  that  the  higher  authority  would  be  guilty  of  improper  conduct? 
General  Zwicker.  It  is  conceivable. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  thinlj  they  are  guilty  of  improper  conduct  here? 
General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  their  judge,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  to  order  the  honorable  discharge  for  a  Com- 
munist major  was  improper  conduct? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  it  was  improper  procedure,  sir. 

Mr.  WiixiAMS.  Then  I  call  your  attention  to  page  154,  immediately 
above  that  wliere  _vou  say,  "Let  me  ask  one  question." 
Will  you  read  that  colloquy? 
Senator  McCarthy   (reading)  : 

Let  me  ask  one  question. 

In  other  words,  you  think  it  is  proper  to  give  an  honorable  discharge  to  a 
man  known  to  be  a  Communist? 
General  Zwicker.  No,  I  do  not. 

Senator  Stennts.  Where  is  that,  please? 

Senator  McCarthy.  That  is  on  page  154,  about  one-fourth  of  the 
way  down  the  page. 

Mr.  Cohn  asked  the  question.  I  beg  your  pardon;  the  Chairman 
asked  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Senator,  just  so  we  will  not  miss  getting  all  of  this 
matter  before  us  so  that  we  may  properly  evaluate  it,  I  call  your  at- 
tention to  page  152,  after  the  long  question  when  you  were  talking 
about  John  Jones  as  a  major,  maybe  you  omitted  the  question  inten- 
tionally, but  you  did  not  read  General  Zwicker's  answer  when  he 
said: 

He  should  be  by  all  means  kept  if  he  were  acting  under  competent  orders  to 
separate  that  man. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  but  then  I  pointed  out.  Senator,  that  I 
referred  to,  I  said,  to  the  man  who  originated  the  order  directing  the 
separation. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  question  as  shown  on  page  153,  and  as  read 
by  the  reporter  over  twice  was  that  the  question  was  directed  to  the 
man  who  originated  the  order,  not  the  man  who  was  acting  under 
competent  orders.  That  was  the  purpose  of  the  clarifying  question 
at  page  153,  the  man  who  originated  the  order,  and  that  was  the  ques- 
tion posed  the  next  two  times  on  that  page  to  which  the  final  answer 
was  given.  Senator. 

•  I  want  to  call  your  attention  in  this^  record  to  page  155.  Was  there 
a  question  propounded  again  to  General  Zwicker  as  to  whether  he 
had  talked  to  anyone  in  Washington  about  the  Peress  case? 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes,  about  one-fourth  of  the  way  down  the 
page  you  will  find  the  question : 

Did  you  talk  to  anyone  in  Washington? 
General  Zwicker.  No,  sir,  about  this  case. 

Mr.  Williams.  The  next  question  is  what? 
Senator  McCarthy  (reading)  : 

Within  the  week  preceeding  his  discharge? 
General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WiLLL\.MS.  Senator,  I  want  to  ask  you  to  describe  if  you  will 
in  the  most  accurate  manner,  but  in  a  very  brief  time  the  demeanor, 
the  attitude,  of  this  witness  as  he  testified  before  the  committee. 

524^^l— 54 14 


204  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

• 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  would  say  he  was  one  of  the  most  arrogant, 
one  of  the  most  evasive  witnesses,  that  I  have  ever  had  before  my 
committee,  one  of  the  most  irritating. 

The  Chairman.  Just  what  did  he  do,  other  than  answer  the  ques- 
tions? Was  there  something  with  respect  to  his  manner?  We  have 
the  record  before  us  as  to  what  he  said.  It  is  somewhat  in  the  nature 
of  a  conchision,  but  if  you  can  get  us  some  of  the  facts  that  helped 
you  to  arrive  at  that  conclusion,  we  would  appreciate  it,  because  we  did 
not  see  it.    We  were  not  there. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  been  a  judge  for 
quite  some  time.  It  is  impossible  to  describe  in  detail  the  arrogance 
of  a  witness.  He  shows  it  when  he  appears  before  a  committee.  He 
displayed  it  that  morning  when  he  sat  in  the  audience  calling  me 
a  S.  O.  B.  because 

The  CHi^iRMAN.  You  did  not  know  about  that. 

Senator  Case.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chahiman.  You  did  not  know  about  that  at  the  time  you  were 
examining  him. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  did  not,  but  the  attitude  was  in  complete 
keeping  with  it,  Mr.  Chairman.  All  you  do  is  to  look  for  demeanor 
of  a  witness,  his  attitude,  his  evasiveness,  and  you  know  as  a  judge 
and  as  a  lawyer  that  you  cannot  put  your  finger  on  specific  items. 
You  have  got  to  sum  the  whole  attitude  up  in  one  parcel,  and  I  merely 
mentioned  the  morning  because  I  knew  about  that,  to  show  that 
his  attitude  in  the  afternoon  was  in  keeping  with  his  attitude  in  the 
morning.  His  attitude  on  the  stand  was  about  the  same  as  ii\  the 
morning;  in  other  words,  that  the  chairman  was  an  S.  O.  B.  and  he 
wouldn't  answer  unless  he  had  to. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  we  heard  the  other  witness.  You  are 
assuming,  of  course,  that  what  he  said  was  the  truth.  We  do  not 
know  all  of  the  meaning  that  he  had  in  connection  with  it.  At  any 
rate,  that  is  before  us,  to  be  considered.  In  all  good  faith,  I  asked 
if  there  were  anything  in  his  mannerism  that  you  could  give  us  as  a 
fact,  what  he  did — his  tone,  and  a  lot  of  things,  I  mean,  which  might 
tend  to  make  a  man  conclude  that  he  was  arrogant. 

I  mean,  aside  from  tlie  answers  that  he  gave,  the  factual  matters 
with  the  statements  and  the  answers,  themselves — I  wonder  if  there 
was  anything  in  his  physical  appearance  or  his  physical  action  at  the 
time,  that  you  used  as  a  basis  for  concluding  that  he  was  arrogant. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Mr.  Chairman,  all  I  can  say  is  that  his  whole 
attitude  when  you  talk  with  him,  in  connection  with  his  refusal  to 
answer  questions  and  his  evasiveness,  you  would  get  the  picture,  but 
you  cannot  get  it  from  the  printed  record;  and  all  I  can  say  is,  the 
full  attitude  was  one  of  complete  arrogance,  complete  contempt  of 
the  committee. 

Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  completed  my  direct  exam- 
ination. I  urge  and  invite  the  committee  members  to  cross-examine 
Senator  McCarthy  vigorously  on  this  subject.  I  believe  that  a  vigor- 
ous cross-examination  is  the  greatest  instrument  that  has  ever  been 
devised  for  eliciting  the  truth;  and  I  turn  him  over  to  you,  sir,  as 
your  witness. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  we  may  expect  that  members  of  the  com- 
mittee will  be  given  an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  with  some  vigor. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  205 

However,  I  think  we  will  place  some  limitations,  not  on  tlie  degree 
of  vigor  which  they  may  use.  I  do  not  think  I  have  to  pass  on  that. 
But  I  think,  possibly  before  they  start — I  assume  you  meant  that  the 
connnittee  counsel  could  question,  as  well. 

Mr.  Williams.  Oh,  surely. 

The  Chairman.  So  probably,  unless  members  of  the  committee 
want  to  talk  now,  or  proceed  to  the  examination — and  I  will  ask  them 
if  they  do. 

Senator  Stennis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  questions,  now,  but 
before  we  leave  this  record  here,  do  I  correctly  understand  that  this 
testimon}'  now  of  General  Zwicker,  and  the  examination  by  Senator 
McCarthy,  is  all  in  the  record  ?     If  it  is  not,  I  think  it  should  be. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  think  so,  too.  Senator. 

Senator  Stennis.  Because  that  is  the  only  way  we  have  of  getting 
the  picture  all  together.     Is  it  already  in,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  A  good  deal  of  it  is  in  the  record.  A  good  deal 
of  what  seemed  to  be  pertinent  material  at  the  time  was  placed  in  the 
record  the  otlier  day,  when  counsel  was  reading  from  this  record. 

Senator  Stennis.  As  I  recall,  the  attorneys  for  the  committee 
placed  in  the  record  Senator  McCarthy's  report.  I  feel  that  it  all 
ought  to  go  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  this  entire  printed  hearing? 

Senator  Stennis.  Well,  there  is  a  viewpoint  that  is  missed  unless 
it  is  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  Some  of  it  may  be  considered  to  be  irrelevant  and 
immaterial,  if  we  eliminate  that. 

Mr.  Williams.  It  is  my  suggestion  that  we  offer  the  Peress  testi- 
mony in  open  session,  and  the  Zwicker  testimony  in  executive  session 
in  toto,  and  I  think  we  shall  then  have  the  whole  picture.  Mr.  de  Furia 
indicates  there  is  no  objection. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  offer  will  be  accepted.  We  have  most 
of  it  now. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chaieman.  To  be  sure  we  have  got  it  all,  we  will  accept  that 
offer  and  will  print  all  the  Peress  testimony,  in  the  open  hearing,  and 
the  Zwicker  testimony  in  the  executive  hearing. 

Mr.  Williams.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Stennis.  Let  all  the  Zwicker  testimony  appear  in  one 
place,  in  the  present  record,  as  it  does  in  this  printed  record  before 
us.    That  is  the  only  way  to  get  it  into  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  just  what  we  will  do,  whenever  it  appears. 
It  should  appear  in  the  record,  about  now,  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  the  testimony  of  those  two  men  that  I  refer  to 
will  be  received  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  a  part  of  the  record. 

Senator  Stennis.  Certainly.    I  thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  will  cover  that.  Thank  you  for  the  sug- 
gestion. 

The  testimony  of  Major  Peress  and  of  General  Zwicker  is  as  follows : 


206  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

TESTIMONY  OF  MAJ.  IRVING  PEEESS,  AEMY  DENTAL  CORPS, 
CAMP  KILMER,  N.  J.,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  STANLEY  FAULKNER, 
ATTORNEY 

The  Chairman.  Major,  would  you  raise  your  right  hand  and  be 
sworn,  please. 

In  the  matter  now  in  hearing,  do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  tes- 
timony you  are  about  to  give  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Will  counsel  identify  himself  for  the  record? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Stanley  Faulkner,  9  East  40th  Street,  New  York 
City. 

The  Chairman.  And  would  you  give  your  telephone  number  in  case 
the  staff  has  to  get  in  touch  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Lexington  2-7780. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Could  we  get  your  full  name  ? 

Major  Peress.  Irving,  I-r-v-i-n-g  Peress,  P-e-r-e-s-s. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Major  Peress.  6139  79th  Street,  Middle  Village,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  what  is  your  current  rank  in  the  Army? 

Major  Peress.  Major. 

Mr.  CoHN.  For  how  long  a  period  of  time  have  you  held  that  rank  ? 

Major  Peress.  Almost  3  months. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  when  did  you  enter  the  Army? 

Major  Peress.  On  active  duty,  you  mean? 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  interrupt.  Do  I  understand  you  were  pro- 
moted 3  months  ago  ? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right.     On  November  2,  1953. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  go  on  active  duty? 

Major  Peress.  January  1,  1952. 

The  Chairman.  A  little  over  2  years  ago  ? 

Major  Peress.  No,  I  am  sorry,  January  1, 1953. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  what  were  the  circumstances  of  your  going  on 
active  duty.    Did  you  apply  or  were  you  called  ? 

By  the  way,  any  time  you  want  to  you  can  consult  with  counsel.  He 
can  talk  to  you  or  nudge  you  and  you  can  do  likewise.  I  don't  know  if 
you  have  been  before  tlie  committee  before. 

(Witness  consults  with  counsel.) 

Major  Peress.  I  registered  under  the  doctor  draft  law;  I  think  it 
was  the  1950  law.  I  was  called  up  in  July  of  1952  to  take  a  physical 
examination,  which  I  passed,  and  I  was  tendered  a  commission  in 
approximately  October  1952  as  captain.  I  got  orders  to  go  on  active 
duty  January  1,  1953. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  apply  for  a  commission  as  captain  ? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  the  procedure  was  the  draft  board  notified  you 
of  your  impending  induction  and  between  the  enlistment  on  my  part — 
the  coinciding  of  dates  coining  in  2  weeks — I  was  informed  the  enlist- 
ment was  not  recognized  so  that  I  went  under  the  normal  channels  of 
draft  induction. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Then  you  applied  for  a  commission,  and  after  you  filled 
out  certain  application  forms,  that  commission  was  tendered  as 
captain.    Is  that  right? 

Major  Peress.  Yes. 


HEARENGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  207 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  you  accepted  the  commission. 

Major  Peress.  I  did. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Where  did  you  enter  on  duty  ? 

Major  Peress.  Fort  Sam  Houston,  Tex. 

Mr.  CoHN.  For  how  long  a  period  were  you  down  there  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  left  home  January  1  and  left  there  February  7. 

Mr.  CoHN.  "W^iere  did  you  go  from  Fort  Sam  Houston  ? 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  interrupt.  Apparently,  Major,  the  situa- 
tion was — see  if  I  understand  you  correctly.  Correct  me  if  I  am 
wrong.     You  did  register  for  the  doctors'  draft. 

Major  Peress.  Every  physician  and  dentist  had  to  register  under 
the  1951  law. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  came  a  time  when  the  draft  board  noti- 
fied you  you  had  been  called  up.  You  were  put  in  a  certain  priority 
depending  on  whether  the  Goverment  had  helped  finance  your  edu- 
cation or  depending  on  the  time  you  served  in  the  last  war. 

Major  Peress.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  After  you  were  classified  in  one  of  those  priorities, 
you  attempted  to  enlist  in  the  Army.  They  told  you  due  to  the  prox- 
imit}^  of  enlistment  to  the  time  of  your  classification,  they  hadn't 
recognized  your  enlistment  and  you  were  about  to  be  inducted ;  then 
you  applied  for  a  commission — they  allow  you  sufficient  time  to  apply 
for  a  commission — a  commission  of  captain  was  tendered  to  you  and 
you  accepted  it.     Is  that  right  ? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  effect  you  attempted  to  volunteer  for  the  service. 
Is  that  correct. 

Major  Peress.  In  effect,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  serve  in  the  last  war  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  had  a  commission  tendered  to  me  and  at  the  last 
moment  they  discovered  I  had  a  physical  defect  which  they  would  not 
waive  and  they  would  not  accept  me. 

The  Chairman.  But  your  physical  defect  was  waived  on  this  oc- 
casion ? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Had  the  Government  financed,  in  any  way,  your 
education  ? 

Major  Peress.  No. 

Mr.  CoHN.  From  Fort  Sam  Houston,  where  did  you  go  after  that? 

Major  Peress.  I  had  orders  to  go^to  Yokohama,  Japan.  When  I 
got  to  the  port  of  embarkation  at  Fort  Lewis,  Wash.,  I  had  an  emer- 
gency leave  to  come  back  home. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a  medical  question? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  sir,  a  medical  question. 

I  came  home  and  had  further  communication  with  the  Department 
of  Defense,  the  Pentagon,  I  received  new  orders  to  report  to  Kilmer. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Wliose  illness  was  it  ? 

Major  Peress.  My  wife  and  daughter. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  you  said  something  about  the  Department  of  De- 
fense.    Who  did  you  see  in  the  Department  of  Defense  ? 

Major  Peress.  Well,  I  guess  I  went  through  the  Adjutant  General's 
Office  in  the  Pentagon. 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  wrote  to  the  proper  authorities  and  requested  a 
change  of  assignment? 


208  HEARINGS    OX    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Major  Peress.  They  did. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Wliere  did  they  station  you  ? 

Major  Peress.  Camp  Kilmer,  N.  J. 

Mr.  ConN.  How  far  is  that  from  New  York  ? 

Major  Peress.  Thirty  miles. 

The  Chairman.  See  if  I  have  this  picture  correctly  in  mind.  You 
were  assigned  to  Yokohama ;  you  got  as  far  as  the  port  of  embarkation 
and  received  emergency  leave  because  of  illness  on  the  part  of  your 
wife  and  daughter. 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  arrived  home  you  applied  for  a  transfer 
to  some  other  station  in  the  United  States  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  applied  for  what  is  called  compassionate 
reassignment. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  you  correspond  with  on  this  subject? 

Major  Peress.  The  Adjutant  General.  I  don't  know  who  handled 
it  in  the  office — in  the  Office  of  the  Adjutant  General. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  correspondence  other  than  through 
official  channels? 

(Witness  consulted  with  counsel.) 

Major  Peress.  Before  I  answer  that  question,  Mr.  Senator,  I  would 
like  to  state,  at  this  time  I  am  on  active  duty  with  the  Army  and  under 
the  sole  jurisdiction  of  the  Army  and  the  President,  who  is  the  Com- 
mander and  Chief  of  the  Armed  Forces,  and  do  not  feel  that  I  come 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  correspondence  with  anyone  with 
regard  to  the  change  of  your  orders  other  than  through  official 
channels  ? 

Major  Peress.  In  regard  to  the  change  of  being  assigned  to  Yoko- 
hama to  being  assigned  to  the  United  States,  did  I  have  correspond- 
ence— you  mean  did  I  write  to  friends  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  question.  Did  you  have  cor- 
respondence other  than  through  official  channels  ? 

Major  Peress.  The  answer  is  "No." 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  no  Congressman,  no  Senator,  no 
one  to  your  knowledge  intervened  in  your  behalf  to  promote  your 
change  of  orders? 

Major  Peress.  Well,  I  wrote  to  nobody,  but  my  wife  asked  my  Con- 
gressman about  the  advice  of  how  to  proceed.  There  was  no  official 
correspondence,  no  intervention.  He  merely  suggested  to  us  the  Red 
Cross  as  a  means  of  coming  back  from  Fort  Lewis,  Wash.,  to  New 
Jersey. 

The  Chairman,  Who  was  your  Congressman? 

Major  Peress.  I  believe  his  name  was  Holtzman. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  is  from  where  ? 

Major  Peress.  Queens,  where  I  live. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  had  correspondence  with  him  when 
you  were  on  your  way  to  Yokohama  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  had  no  correspondence  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  have  correspondence  with  him  ? 

Major  Peress.  Well,  I  don't  remember  exactly  but  my  wife  either 
called  him  or  wrote  to  him  because  he  lives  in  the  neighborhood  and 
got  a  telegram  back  from  him  to  the  effect  that  I  get  in  touch  with  the 
Red  Cross  in  order  to  secure  time  that  my  apj^eal  be  considered. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  209 

As  it  was,  because  of  the  element  of  time,  nothing  could  be  done  and 
I  would  have  had  to  go  to  the  Far  East  and  take  it  up  in  the  Far 
East.  He  suggested  the  Red  Cross  as  an  instrument  of  delaying  the 
transfer  overseas. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  copies  of  the  correspondence  and  the 
application  you  made  at  that  time?  Do  you  have  copies  of  corres- 
pondence with  your  Congressman,  the  Red  Cross,  Department  of 
Army — any  correspondence  in  connection  with  the  delay  or  change  of 
orders  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  should  say 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  have  the  correspondence  ? 

Major  Peress.  Well,  I  made  copies  but  I  am  not  real  sure  I  have 
them. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  have  any  along  with  you  ? 

Major  Peress.  Let's  see. 

(Witness  examines  record.) 

The  Chairman.  Any  documents  having  to  do  with  the  change  of 
orders  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  do  not  have  them  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anyone  in  the  Army  ever  ask  you  whether 
you  were  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  or  a  Communist  Party 
organizer  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  fifth  amendment  on  the  ground  it  might  tend  to  incriminate 
me. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to  answer  whether  or  not  they  asked 
you  ?     Are  you  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  today  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  decline,  claiming  the  privilege  for  the  reason 
previously  stated. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  at 
the  time  you  were  inducted  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  Communists  intervene  to  have  your  orders 
changed  so  you  would  not  have  to  leave  the  country  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  entitled  to  the  privilege. 

Is  your  wife  a  member  of  the  Communist  party  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Your  wife's  name  is  Elaine,  is  that  correct  ? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  children  do  you  have? 

Major  Peress.  Two. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  are  they  ? 

Major  Peress.  Six  and  a  half  and  eight  and  a  half. 

The  Chairman,  And  you  said  your  orders  were  changed  because 
of  illness.    What  was  the  illness  ? 

Major  Peress.  It  is  a  personal  matter  I'd  rather  not  discuss.  The 
Army  has  official  information  on  it. 

The  Chairman.  If  it  is  an  illness  which  is  in  any  way  embarrassing, 
we  would  not  require  you  to  discuss  it.  Otherwise,  we  will  have  to 
ask  you  about  it. 

I  am  curious  to  know  how  Communists  can  get  their  orders  changed 
so  easily.  The  average  man  would  be  sent  to  Yokohama.  You  can 
suddenly  have  your  orders  changed  and  kept  in  this  country.    I  am 


210         HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

curious  to  know  whether  the  ilhiess  was  real  or  imaginary.  I  am 
curious  to  know  if  that  was  the  real  factor;  if  you  were  telling  the 
truth,  or  you  were  lying.  You  told  the  Army  your  wife  and  daugh- 
ter were  sick.  If  the  sickness  would  be  embarrassing  to  discuss  it, 
we  will  not  ask  about  it ;  otherwise  I  want  to  know  about  it. 

Major  Peress.  The  Red  Cross  made  an  investigation  of  the  nature 
of  the  illness  and  the  validity  of  the  reason  of  the  change  and  these  are 
on  file  in  the  Army  records. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  the  reasons?  If  the  Red  Cross  made 
an  investigation,  there  is  nothing  confidential.  Wliat  were  the 
reasons  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  would  still  rather  not  discuss  it.  Senator,  because  it 
is  personal,  and  I  feel  it  invades  the  privacy  of  the  medical  profession 
and  is  not  pertinent. 

The  Chairman.  Mister,  I  don't  know  whether  the  reason  is  suf- 
ficient. Every  day  in  my  office  I  have  young  men  writing  in  saying 
tlieir  wives  are  sick,  very  ill,  asking  to  have  their  orders  changed  so 
they  will  not  have  to  go  overseas.  They  are  sent  overseas.  I  just 
wonder  how  you  Communists  have  such  tremendous  luck  clay  after 
day  when  you  come  before  us.  There  is  no  consideration  too  great. 
I  want  to  find  out  how  you  stopped  at  the  port  of  embarkation ;  who 
stopped  you  when  he  knew  you  were  a  Communist ;  whether  another 
Communist  did  it  for  you,  and  I  am  going  to  order  you  to  tell  us  what 
the  alleged  illness  was. 

Major  Peress.  The  reason  is  simply  that  my  wife  and  daughter 
were  undergoing  psychiatric  treatment,  and  I  am  not  a  psychiatrist 
and  couldn't  detail  the  reasons.  He  felt  it  would  be  desirable  for  the 
health  of  the  family  to  have  me  stay. 

I'he  Chairman.  In  other  words,  there  was  no  physical  illness  except 
that  they  were  under  the  care  of  a  psychiatrist  because  of  some  emo- 
tional disturbance.     Is  that  correct? 

Major  Peress.  I  don't  know  if  you  feel  there  is  a  difference  between 
physical  and  mental  illness — if  there  is  a  different  level  of  the  validity 
of  illnesses.     As  I  said,  they  were  under  psychiatric  treatment. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  was  your  daughter  when  she  was  under 
this  treatment? 

Major  Peress.  She  was  at  the  time  just  under  6. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  Major,  you  are  a  graduate  of  the  leadei-ship  train- 
ing course  of  the  Inwood  Victory  Club  of  the  Communist  Party,  are 
you  not? 

Major  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth 
amendment. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  attend  courses  in  leadership  of  the  Inwood  Vic- 
tory Club  of  the  Communist  Party  at  139  Dyckman  Street? 

Major  Peress.  I  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  this.  When  you  say  you  claim  th(i 
privilege,  you  are  claiming  it  under  that  part  of  the  fifth  amendment 
which  provides  that  you  need  not  give  testimony  that  you  feel  might 
tend  to  incriminate  you.     Is  that  correct? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  that  you  can  only  claim  that  privi- 
lege if  you  feel  a  truthful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you ;  you 
cannot  claim  the  privilege  if  you  feel  perjury  would  incriminate  you. 
Do  you  understand  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  211 

Major  Peress.  I  understand  your  question. 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  position  that  you  feel  a  truthful  answer 
to  this  question  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  correct.  Since  the  Constitution,  I  believe, 
states  I  may  believe  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  and  not  that 
it  will  incriminate  me,  I  am  exercising  the  right  under  the  fifth 
amendment,  which  so  stated. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  you  a  simple  question,  before  I  can  deter- 
mine whether  you  are  entitled  to  the  fifth  amendment  privilege.  The 
question  is :  Do  you  feel  a  truthful  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate 
you  ?  If  you  do,  you  are  entitled  to  refuse.  If  you  do  not,  then  you 
must  answer. 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  I  do  feel  a  a  truthful  answer  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  is  what  you  mean  is  your  answer  to  all 
these  questions  when  yon  say 

Major  Peress.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  CoHN.  At  the  leadership  training  course  of  the  Inwood  Victory 
Club,  were  you  taught  the  doctrine  of  forcible  overthrow  of  the 
United  States  Government? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  yourself  deliver  talks  at  Communist  discussion 
groups  at  which  you  discussed  the  doctrine  of  Marxism  and  Leninism 
urging  the  overthrow  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  by  force 
and  violence? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

Mr.  CoHN.  When  you  went  down  to  Camp  Kilmer,  specifically, 
when  at  Camp  Kilmer,  did  you  attempt  to  recruit  any  of  the  military 
personnel  there  into  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege  for  the  same  reason. 

Mr,  CoHN.  While  stationed  at  Camp  Kilmer  did  you  have  Comnum- 
ist  Party  meetings  at  your  home,  attended  by  one  or  more  military 
personnel  from  Camp  Kilmer  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilesre. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  you  attended  City  College  from  1933  to  1936.  I3 
that  right? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CoHN,  And  then  you  went  to  NYU  Dental  School  from  193G 
through  1940? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  CoHN.  While  you  were  at  Camp  Kilmer,  were  you  taking  orders 
from  any  functionaries  of  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

Mr.  CoHN.  In  addition  to  your  work  in  the  Dental  Corps,  did  you 
have  any  other  assignment,  extra  duty,  or  anything  else  in  connection 
with  Army  service?     Were  you  ever  on  any  board  or  special  detail? 

Major  Peress.  Repeat  the  beginning  of  that  question. 

Mr.  CoHN.  In  addition  to  your  regular  dental  duty,  did  you  ever 
carry  out  any  other  assignment,  extra  duty,  or  anything  else  in  connec- 
tion with  Army  service  on  a  part-time  basis  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  carried  no  assignment,  but  in  the  preliminary  train- 
ing at  Fort  Sam  Houston  it  was  not  all  dental  work.  I  had  to  learn 
hoAv  to  conduct  medical  battalions  in  the  field  and  take  over  first-aid 
duties. 


212  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  ever  sit  on  a  board  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  took  regular  duty  when  my  turn  came  around,  that 
is,  dental  duty. 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  had  no  duty  other  than  dental  duty  ? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  CoHN.  While  at  Camp  Kilmer,  did  you,  in  fact,  recruit  military 
personnel  into  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman".  Were  you  promoted  after  the  Army  had  you  in 
and  questioned  you  about  your  background  ? 

Major  Peress.  You  mean  in  service? 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  were  you  before  the  security  officer,  a  board, 
or  your  commanding  officer  and  questioned  about  your  background? 

Major  Peress.  I  was  never  before  any  board  in  the  Army  for  ques- 
tioning. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  were  never  before  a  board  of  inquiry 
or  questioned  about  your  background  by  any  officer  of  the  Army  ? 

Major  Peress.  If  this  is  what  you  mean,  I  was  never  before  any 
board  of  inquiry  of  one  or  more  members. 

Mr.  CoHN.  In  August  of  1953,  that  is  August  of  this  last  summer, 
were  you  asked  any  questions  or  given  interrogatories  concerning  Com- 
munist Party  affiliations  ? 

Major  Peress.  Would  you  repeat  whether  you  are  asking  about 
orally  or  in  writing? 

Mr.  CoHN.  We  will  let  it  cover  both.  My  question  was,  Were  you 
asked  written  or  oral  questions  concerning  Communist  Party  affilia- 
tions? 

Major  Peress.  Was  I  asked  these  questions  ? 

Mr.  CoHN.  In  August  of  1953  you  were  given  interrogatories  by  the 
Army  which  you  refused  to  answer.     Isn't  that  a  fact  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  answered  them. 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  answered  all  of  them  ? 

Major  Peress.  Yes. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  ever  refuse  to  answer  interrogatories  put  to  you 
by  the  Army  ? 

Major  Peress.  What  is  the  meaning  of  refuse?  I  was  given  an  in- 
terrogatory and  I  returned  it. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  answer  every  question  on  the  interrogatory? 

Major  Peress.  Yes ;  or  it  would  not  have  been  accepted. 

Mr.  CoHN.  I  am  talking  about  August  1953. 

Major  Peress.  It  would  not  have  been  accepted  if  I  had  not  an- 
swered all  the  questions. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  give  information  in  response  to  every  question? 

(Witness  consults  with  counsel.) 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  were  given  an  interrogatory  by  the  Army  in  Aug- 
ust 1953.  You  declined  to  answer  certain  of  the  questions  on  the  basis 
of  the  fifth  amendment.     That  is  a  matter  of  public  record,  isn't  it? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  CoHN.  How  many  questions  did  you  decline  to  answer  on  the 
basis  of  the  fifth  amendment  ? 

Major  Peress.   (No  answer.) 

Mr.  CoHN.  Is  this  a  fair  statement?  Let  me  see  if  I  can  save  time. 
You  refused  to  answer,  under  the  fifth  amendment,  any  questions  deal- 
ing with  Communist  affiliations  or  associations. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  213 

Major  Peress.  If  I  may  see  the  interrogatory,  I  can  answer  that 
question. 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question. 

Major  Peress.  Well,  do  you  have  a  record  on  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question. 

Major  Peress.  I  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer. 

Major  Peress.  I  have  no  privilege  on  this  question? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  the  question.  You  can 
consult  with  counsel  if  you  like.  The  question  is.  On  this  applica- 
tion, did  you  refuse  to  answer  questions  relating  to  Communist  Party 
affiliations? 

Major  Peress.  If  you  will  repeat  the  specific  questions  on  the  in- 
terrogatory to  me 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  counsel's  question. 

Major  Peress.  I  claim  the  privilege  on  the  questions  that  were  pre- 
sented to  me  on  the  interrogatory. 

The  Chairman.  Have  the  record  show  that  the  witness  was  ordered 
to  answer  counsel's  question.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  public  record,  there  is  no  privilege.  After  the  chairman  ordered 
him  to  answer,  the  witness  persisted  in  refusing  to  answer. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  He  did  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Senator. 

Major  Peress.  I  answered  the  questions  on  the  interrogatory  they 
refer  to  by  claiming  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  With  reference  to  those  questions  on  the  interroga- 
tory, you  answered  them  to  the  Army  by  claiming  the  fifth  amend- 
ment? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  connection  was  the  interrogatory  filled 
out?  Was  it  in  connection  with  a  loyalty  investigation  or  a  promo- 
tional investigation? 

Major  Peress.  There  was  no  discussion  by  the  colonel  who  gave 
them  to  me. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Who  was  that? 

Major  Peress.  He  was  in  the  G-2  office.  I  don't  recall  his  name.  It 
was  a  short  name.  Smith  or  something  like  that.  It  might  have  been 
Smith.  ^ 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  hear  anything  further  from  this  colonel  after 
you  filled  out  the  interrogatory  ? 

Major  Peress.  They  gave  them  to  me  1  day  and  I  filled  them  out 
and  gave  them  back  the  next  day. 

The  Chairman.  You  heard  nothing  from  him  after  that — after 
you  refused  to  answer  ? 

Major  Peress.  After  I  resubmitted  the  interrogatory  with  the  ques- 
tions answered  in  writing,  I  never  heard  from  him  again. 

The  Chairman.  After  you  refused  to  answer  questions  concerning 
Communist  Party  affiliations,  claiming  the  fifth  amendment,  in  this 
questionnaire,  you  heard  nothing  more  about  the  matter  from  any 
Army  officials  and  you  were  subsequently  promoted;  is  that  correct? 

Major  Peress.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  Communists  aid  you  in  getting  this  promo- 
tion? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege,  but  I  will  tell  you  how  the 
promotion  was  effected  if  you  want  to  know. 


214  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  any  Communist  in  the  military 
today  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chaikman.  How  much  of  your  salary,  if  any,  do  you  contribute 
to  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege  for  the  same  reason. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  attend  a  Communist  Party  meeting  within 
the  last  week  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  attempted  to  recruit  soldiers  into  the 
Communist  Party  in  the  last  week? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  a  Communist  cell  at  Camp  Kilmer  of  which 
you  are  a  member  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  organize  a  Communist  cell  at  Camp 
Kilmer? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  Communists  should  be  commissioned 
in  our  military? 

Major  Peress.  I  again  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  entitled  to  any  privilege  on  that  ques- 
tion.   You  are  ordered  to  answer. 

Major  Peress.  Do  1  think  Communists  should  be  commissioned  in 
the  Array,  I  haven't  thought  about  it.  I  don't  feel  one  way  or  the 
other. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  if  the  Army  finds  out  you  are  an  or- 
ganizer for  the  Communist  Party,  organizing  a  cell,  soliciting  soldiers 
in  the  party,  they  should  oust  you  from  the  Army  or  leave  you  in  or 
do  you  have  any  opinion  on  that? 

Major  Peress.  I  feel  I  haven't  any  opinion ;  that  that  is  a  policy  for 
the  Army  to  say. 

Mr.  Cohn.  1  meant  to  ask  this.  Is  the  psychiatric  treatment  of  your 
wife  and  daughter  continuing  up  to  the  present  time? 

Major  Peress.  Yes. 

Mr.  Cohn.  Continuing  steadily  without  interruption? 

]\fajor  Peress.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Cohn.  What  is  the  name  of  the  doctor  who  gives  that  psychi- 
atric treatment  ?    Do  you  recall  that  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  am  not  sure.  I  know  it  is  connected  with  NYU. 
There  is  a  clinic  at  NYU.    I  don't  know  if  it  is  affiliated  with  NYU. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  know  the  name  of  the  doctor  who  has 
been  treating  your  wife  a  year  or  two. 

Major  Peress.  There  has  been  more  than  one  physician  involved. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  name  of  the  first  one  you  knew  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  sure.  You  are  not  sure  of  the  name 
of  any  doctor  or  psychiatrist  who  treated  your  wife  for  an  ailment 
so  serious  ? 

Major  Peress.  Dr.  Schecter  was  involved.  I  think  he  is  treating 
my  daughter,  and  Dr.  Gerwin,  who,  I  think,  is  treating  my  wife,  or 
the  other  way  around.  One  is  treating  my  wife  and  the  other  my 
daughter. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  215 

The  Chairman.  Now,  when  was  the  last  treatment  for  either  your 
wife  or  daughter  ? 

Major  Peress.  Tuesday  and  Friday  they  go. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  doctor  was  treating  your  wife  and 
daughter  at  the  time  you  received  this  change  of  orders? 

Major  Peress.  It  is  a  German  name.    I  don't  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Wliere  is  his  office  ? 

Major  Peress.  It  is  in  the  midwest  Manhattan  section,  and  I  be- 
lieve in  the  eighties. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  before  the  application  for  change  of 
orders  was  your  wife  and  daughter  being  treated  for  this  psychiatric 
ailment  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  couldn't  say  for  sure.  My  wife,  I  believe,  had  been 
seeing  this  doctor  for  a  year  or  2  years. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  had  your  daughter  been  taking  treat- 
ments ? 

Major  Peress.  It  may  have  been  at  the  age  of  4  or  3i^  or  41/2- 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  refuse  to  tell  us  whether  or  not  a 
Communist  helped  to  get  this  change  of  orders  ? 

Major  Peress.  Under  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  appear  in  Washington,  in 
room  357,  Senate  Office  Building,  on  the  16th  of  February. 

(The  chief  counsel  consults  with  the  chairman.) 

We  will  change  that  place  and  date  to  the  18th  of  February  in  New 
York  City,  in  this  courthouse.  Now,  I  don't  know  what  room  here  it 
will  be.  Counsel  will  notify  your  lawyer  what  room,  and  make  that 
10 :  30  in  the  morning,  unless  your  counsel  is  notified  of  a  different  time. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Will  that  be  executive  session  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  public  session. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  I  think  the  record  should  show  the  witness  appeared 
here  voluntarily  without  subpena.    Will  he  be  subpenaed  ? 

The  Chairman.  He  is  ordered  now. 

Mr.  Cohn.  You  understand  if  a  man  is  notified  to  appear  before  a 
congressional  committee  and  given  sufficient  time,  regardless  of 
whether  he  is  notified  by  telephone,  telegram,  or  formal  subpena,  that 
is  a  subpena.     Now,  if  you  prefer — sometimes  counsel  prefers  subpena. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  That  is  what  I  am  coming  to.  The  witness,  being 
in  the  Armed  Forces,  I  think  a  subpena 

Mr.  CoHN.  We  will  be  glad  to  do  tliat. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  Counsel,  the  committee  would  like  to  look  at 
the  correspondence  of  the  witness  relating  to  military  service  and 
various  assignments  he  had.    I  assume  he  has  that  with  him. 

Mr.  CoiiN.  We  just  want  to  look  at  it.  We  will  return  it.  We  will 
have  a  copy  made  if  we  need  it. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  This  has  been  turned  over  to  me  as  counsel,  and  as 
his  counsel  I  am  not  prepared  to  turn  it  over.    It  is  confidential. 

Mr.  CoHN.  He  can't  make  it  a  confidential  privilege  merely  because 
he  turns  it  over  to  you.  If  it  is  under  his  control  and  in  his  possession, 
he  has  to  produce  it.    This  is  clearly  under  his  control. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  On  the  other  hand,  I  don't  see  why  he  should  have 
any  objection  to  that.  Everything  we  have  here  you  have  a  copy  of  in 
the  files.  These  are  just  copies  of  letters  going  back  to  1940,  if  you  are 
interested  in  1940. 


216  HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

Mr.  CoHN.  All  we  will  do  is  have  an  investigator  look  through  it. 
Why  don't  you  stay  there  with  them  to  see  that  nothing  is  removed. 
If  anything  is  of  sufficient  importance,  arrangements  will  be  made  with 
you  to  have  it  photostated,  so  you  will  be  sure  to  have  it  back. 

Major  Peress.  These  forms  I  filled  out  when  I  entered  service,  that 
I  believe  is  confidential  between  me  and  the  Army. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  nothing  confidential  between  a  member 
of  the  Communist  Party  and  the  Army  when  the  committee  is 
investigating. 

Major  Peress.  I  just  made  copies  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Anything  in  the  hands  of  the  Communist  Party  is 
no  longer  confidential,  because  being  in  the  Communist  Party,  if  tney 
tell  you  to  turn  things  over  to  the  Communist  Party,  you  know  you  are 
bound  to  do  it,  so  we  don't  give  the  Communist  Party  any  special 
privilege  before  this  committee.  The  witness  is  ordered  to  turn  the 
papers  over  to  counsel. 

In  case  any  questions  arise,  have  the  record  show  that  the  major  has 
the  material  in  his  hands  and  will  turn  it  over  to  his  lawyer  and  he  will 
produce  it. 

You  haven't  been  asked  to  resign,  have  you? 

Major  Peress.  Yes,  I  have. 

The  Chairman.  Who  asked  you  ? 

Major  Peress.  Colonel  Moore.  I  am  not  sure  of  that  name.  It 
might  be  some  other  name. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  refuse  to  resign  ? 

Major  Peress.  No,  I  accepted  the  request.  I  have  a  day  of  termina- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  date  are  you  due  to  resign  ? 

Major  Peress.  It  is  no  later  than  the  31st  of  March,  but  I  can  move 
it  up  if  I  so  desire. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  being  given  an  honorable  discharge? 

Major  Peress.  I  haven't  been  given — — 

The  Chairman.  So  far  as  you  know,  you  are  being  allowed  to  resign 
with  no  reflection  on  your  record  ? 

Major  Peress.  There  was  no  discussion  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  Why  were  you  asked  to  resign  ? 

Major  Peress.  They  wouldn't  tell  me  the  reason. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  refuse  to  resign  ? 

Major  Peress.  No,  I  was  never  requested  to  before. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  requested  to  resign? 

Major  Peress.  A  week  ago  today. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  were  asked  to  resign  after  you 
were  ordered  to  appear  before  this  committee  ? 

Major  Peress.  I  was  ordered  to  come  before  this  committee  yester- 
day morning. 

Mr.  CoHN.  That  was  the  first  time  you  had  ever  been  asked  to 
resign  ? 

Major  Peress.  The  first  time  was  a  week  ago  this  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 

The  Chairman.  O.  K.,  you  may  step  down. 

(l^^iereupon,  the  hearing  adjourned  at  11 :  30  a.  m.) 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  217 

AFTERNOON  SESSION 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  raise  your  right  hand?  In  this  matter 
now  in  hearing  before  this  committee,  do  you  solemnly  swear  to  tell 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  IRVING  PEKESS  (ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS  COUNSEL, 
STANLEY  FAULKNER,  NEW  YORK  CITY) 

The  Chairman.  You  said  you  were  not  a  major.  When  did  you 
last  have  the  rank  of  major? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  would  like,  if  possible,  to  make  a  statement  before 
testifying  before  the  committee.  I  have  a  brief  statement  I  would 
like  to  make.  I  will  answer  the  question.  I  stopped  being  a  major 
February  2,  1954. 

The  Chairman.  February  2,  1954? 

Mr.  Peress.  May  I  read  a  statement  before  the  committee? 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  a  statement  your  attorney  is  aware  of 
the  rules  of  the  committee.  The  statement  must  be  submitted  24  hours 
in  advance.  In  other  words,  if  you  will  hand  the  statement  up,  we 
will  glance  at  it  and  see  whether  you  can  read  it.  If  it  is  pertinent  to 
the  hearing,  you  will  be  allowed  to  read  it. 

(Document  handed  to  chairman.) 

The  Chairman.  You  may  read  it.    Is  this  an  extra  copy  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes. 

I  have  been  subpenaed  to  appear  before  this  committee  presumably 
to  answer  certain  questions  concerning  my  political  beliefs,  both  past 
and  present.  So  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  about  my  position  in 
this  regard,  I  shall  decline  to  answer  any  such  questions  under  the 
protection  of  the  fifth  amendment  to  our  Constitution. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  interrupt  you  there?  You  are  not  being 
subpenaed  to  answer  in  regard  to  your  political  beliefs.  You  are  here 
to  answer  in  regard  to  the  part  you  played  while  an  officer  in  the 
United  States  Army  in  the  conspiracy  designed  to  destroy  this  Nation. 
That  is  what  you  are  being  called  about.  You  are  not  being  asked 
about  any  of  your  political  beliefs.  You  will  not  be  asked  about  any 
political  beliefs. 

You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Peress.  From  my  earliest  schooling  I  have  been  taught  that  the 
United  States  Constitution  is  the  highest  law  of  our  land  and  that  one 
of  the  strongest  provisions  is  the  protection  afforded  to  all  persons  of 
the  privilege  under  the  fifth  amendment.  My  education  has  also 
taught  me  that  anyone,  even  a  United  States  Senator,  who  would  deny 
this  constitutional  protection  to  any  individual  or  who  under  his  cloak 
of  his  immunity  would  draw  inferences  therefrom,  and  publicly  an- 
nounce such  inferences,  is  subversive.  I  use  that  word  advisedly.  By 
subversive  I  mean  anyone  who  would  undermine  the  strength  of  the 
Constitution  and  thereby  weaken  our  democratic  form  of  government. 
"When  I  appeared  before  you,  Senator  McCarthy,  on  January  30,  1954, 
at  an  executive  session  of  your  committee,  you,  acting  as  a  committee 
of  one,  made  certain  charges  concerning  my  promotion  in  rank  and 
pending  honorable  discharge.  Just  to  make  the  record  clear,  I  was 
promoted  and  honorably  discharged  under  Public  Law  84  of  the  83d 


218  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Congress,  wliicli  incidentally  was  passed  when  you,  Senator  McCarthy, 
were  a  Member  of  the  Senate.  In  recognition  of  my  honest  and  faith- 
ful service  to  my  coimtry  I  was  awarded  an  honorable  discharge  on 
February  2,  1954.  In  the  period  of  my  service,  no  one  either  within 
or  witliout  found  it  necessary  to  question  my  loyalty. 

Another  bit  of  schooling  which  I  had  as  a  Jew^  was  a  study  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  I  highly  recommend  to  you,  Senator,  and  your 
counsel,  and  i:)articularly  Book  7  of  the  Psalms,  which  reads : 

His  mischief  shall  return  upon  his  own  head  and  his  violence  shall  come  down 
upon  his  own  pate. 

The  Chairman.  Major,  you  just  heard  a  policewoman  for  the  city 
of  New  York  testify  that  you  attended  a  Communist  leadership  school. 
Is  that  testimony  on  her  part  true  or  false? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  must  decline  to  answer  that  question.  Senator,  under 
the  protection  of  the  fifth  amendment  on  tlie  ground  that  it  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me.  I  would  also  like  to  say.  Senator,  that  I  am  not  a 
major.     The  title  is  "Dr.  Peress,"  not  "Major  Peress." 

Tlie  Chairman.  Let  me  make  this  very  clear:  You  have  been  ac- 
cused. Major,  of  the  most  dishonest,  the  worst  conduct  that  anyone  in 
the  Army  can  be  guilty  of.  You  have  been  accused  under  oath  of 
being  a  member  of  a  conspiracy  designed  to  destroy  this  Nation  by 
force  and  violence.  You  are  here  this  morning,  you  are  given  an  op- 
portunity under  oath,  to  tell  us  whether  or  not  those  charges  are  true 
or  false.  If  you  are  a  part  of  this  treasonous  conspiracy,  if  you  have 
attended  leadership  schools  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  obviously 
3'ou  will  take  the  protection  of  the  fifth  amendment.  If  you  are  inno- 
cent, you  will  tell  us  that.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  this  question:  Is  it 
true  that  as  of  this  moment  and  during  all  the  time  that  you  were  an 
officer  in  the  United  States  Army,  you  were  an  active  member  of  the 
Communist  conspiracy  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  received  your  commission  in  the 
Army,  were  you  a  section  organizer  for  the  Communist  conspiracy? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  What  privilege? 

Mr.  Peress.  The  privilege  to  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth 
amendment. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  ground  of  self-incrimination? 

Mr.  Peress,  On  the  ground  that  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  were  promoted  from  captain  to 
major,  were  you  then  an  active,  knowing  member  of  the  Communist 
conspiracy? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  claim  the  privilege. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  have  to  tell  us  each  time  under  what 
privilege. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  must  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  fifth  amendment  on  the  ground  that  it  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Did  you  hold  Conmiunist  meetings  in  your  home  while  you  were 
an  officer  in  the  United  States  Army  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  claim  the  first  amendment  on  the  gi"Ound  that  it 
might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  219 

The  Chairman.  Who  signed  your  honorable  discharge? 

Mr.  Peress.  John  J.  McManus,  major,  Infantry. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  discharge? 

Mr.  Peress.  That  is  a  photostat  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  hand  it  up? 

(Document  handed  to  the  chairman.) 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  John  J.  McManus  located  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  have  no  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Who  notified  you  that  you  would  receive  an  honor- 
able discharge? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  believe  I  was  officially  notified.  It  was  just 
tendered  to  me  when  I  left. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  handed  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes ;  as  part  of  my  records. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  have  the  record  show  that  this  is  signed 
February  2, 1954.     This  was  handed  to  you  on  what  date  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  February  2,  1954. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  have  the  record  show  that  this  was  signed 
and  handed  to  this  fifth  amendment  Communist,  Major  Peress,  after  I 
had  written  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  suggesting  that  he  be  court- 
martialed,  suggesting  that  everyone  having  anything  to  do  with  his 
promotion,  with  his  change  of  orders,  be  court-martialed.  I  did  that 
feeling  that  this  would  be  one  way  to  notify  all  the  officers  in  the 
Army  and  all  the  enlisted  men,  that  there  has  been  a  new  day  in  the 
Army,  that  the  20  years  of  treason  have  ended,  and  that  no  officer  in 
the  Army  can  protect  traitors,  can  protect  Communists.  I  want  the 
record  to  show  this  was  given  to  you  after  that  letter  had  been  made 
public,  before  the  Secretary  of  the  Army,  Kobert  Stevens,  returned 
to  the  United  States.  I  ask,  Mr.  Adams,  where  is  John  J.  McManus 
now? 

Mr.  John  Adams  (legal  counsel  to  Department  of  the  Army,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C).  I  don't  know,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  presume  he  is  an 
officer  in  headquarters.  First  Army. 

The  Chairman.  AVill  we  have  to  subpena  him,  or  will  he  be  pro- 
duced ? 

Mr.  Adams.  He  will  be  produced. 

The  Chairman.  Good.  We  will  want  him  in  executive  session  this 
afternoon,  unless  he  feels  that  he  needs  additional  time  to  get  a  lawyer 
to  represent  him.  If  he  wants  additional  time,  we  will  give  him  any 
time  that  is  within  reason  that  he  wants.  If  he  doesn't  need  time  to 
get  a  lawyer,  I  want  him  here  this  afternoon  at  2 :  30  o'clock,  in  ex- 
ecutive session. 

Have  you  met  John  J.  McManus  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Who  handed  you  this  honorable  discharge  ? 
^  Mr.  Peress.  I  am  not  sure.     I  think  it  was  a  sergeant  at  the  separa- 
tion center.     I  don't  know — or  it  could  have  been  a  warrant  officer. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  the  highest  ranking  officer  with  whom  you 
spoke  after  your  appearance  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  Peress.  General  Zwicker. 

The  Chairman.  General  Zwicker?  "WHiat  conversation  did  you 
have  with  General  Zwicker? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Would  you  repeat  that  question,  please  ? 

52461—54 15 


220  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  Will  the  reporter  read  the  question  ? 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  recall  the  exact  word-for-word  conversation.  I 
requested  of  General  Zwicker,  after  the  hearing  before  you  on  Janu- 
ary 30,  when  I  saw  him  on  February  1,  that  an  inquiry  be  made  into 
these  charges,  that  the  newspapers  had  lambasted  me  with  on  Sunday 
and  Monday. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  him  whether  or  not  you  were  a  Com- 
munist? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds ■ 

The  Chairman.  You  wanted  an  inquiry  made  as  to  whether  or  not 
you  are  a  Communist ;  is  that  correct  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  wanted  an  inquiry  of  my  conduct  at  Camp  Kilmer. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  want  the  inquiry  to  include  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  you  had  been  holding  Communist  meetings  at  your 
home,  whether  you  had  attended  a  Communist  leadership  school, 
whether  you  had  been  recruiting  military  personnel  there  into  the 
Communist  conspiracy?     Did  you  want  that  included? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress,  I  could  not  tell  them  what  to  inquire  about,  but  I  asked 
for  an  inquiry  of  the  charges  generally.  I  didn't  specify  as  to  which 
charges  to  inquire  into  and  which  not  to  inquire  into. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  them  whether  or  not  you  would  tell 
them  the  truth  if  they  made  such  an  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  told  General  Zwicker,  as  you  asked  me,  that  I  would 
like  an  inquiry  into  the  charges.     I  didn't  tell  him  anything  further. 

The  Chairman.  They  made  an  inquiry  in  August,  did  they  not? 
They  sent  you  a  questionnaire.  They  came  to  the  best  witness  they 
could  find  on  this,  assuming  a  Communist  is  a  good  witness.  They 
asked  you  practically  all  the  questions  this  committee  has  asked  you. 
They  asked  you  about  all  of  your  alleged  activities  in  this  Com- 
munist conspiracy.  That  was  in  the  inquiry.  Did  you  tell  them 
the  truth  at  that  time? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  answer  the  questions  as  to  whether  or  not 
you  were  a  member  of  the  Communist  conspiracy  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer.  It  is  a  matter  of 
public  record.     You  cannot  decline. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  If  it  is  a  matter  of  public  record,  then  I  decline  to 
answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to  answer?  You  decline  to  answer 
that? 

Mr.  Peress.  You  said  it  is  a  matter  of  public  record. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  declining  to  answer? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Could  you  repeat  the  question,  please  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  read  it. 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  221 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Have  the  record  show,  so  that  there  can  be  no  claim 
of  lack  of  knowledge  at  a  future  legal  proceeding 

Mr.  Peress.  On  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  That  the  witness  was  asked  whether  or  not  he 
answered  an  Army  questionnaire,  as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  part 
of  the  Communist  conspiracy.  He  declined,  invoking  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. The  Chair  ordered  him  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  this 
is  an  improper  invocation  of  the  fifth  amendment.  Have  the  record 
show  he  still  declines. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  CoHN.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  executive  session  this  witness,  after 
you  overruled  his  privilege,  did  answer  this  question  and  stated,  "I 
answered  the  questions  on  the  interrogatory  by  claiming  the  fifth 
amendment." 

In  other  words,  when  the  Army  submitted  interrogatories  to  this 
witness  in  August  he  refused  to  answer  to  the  Army  the  pertinent 
questions  on  Communist  activity,  and  claimed  the  fifth  amendment 
in  the  Army  inquiry  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  Counsel,  for  calling  that  to  my  atten- 
tion. Have  the  record  show  that  an  additional  ground  for  the 
Chair's  ordering  him  to  answer  is  the  fact  that  he  has  already  waived 
the  fifth  amendment  privilege  as  to  this  area  of  investigation.  Have 
the  record  show  that  he  still  refuses  to  answer. 

In  November  1953,  were  you  promoted  to  major? 

Mr.  Peress.  Was  I  promoted  to  major  in  November  of  1953? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anyone  in  the  military,  between  August  1953 
and  January  of  1954,  ever  ask  you  about  any  alleged  Communist 
Party  activities  on  your  part? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Would  you  read  that  again,  please? 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  on  the  grounds  of  the  fifth  amendment,  that 
the  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  After  our  hearing  here  in  New  York,  I  believe  it 
was  about  2  weeks  ago,  I  read  a  statement  which  you  allegedly  made  to 
the  press,  to  the  effect  that  the  charges  that  you  were  a  Communist 
were  false.  Now,  I  know  that  you  fifth  amendment  Communists  sing 
a  different  tune  under  oath.  You  can  lie  as  much  as  you  like  when 
you  are  not  under  oath.  Do  you  want  to  tell  us  now  whether  or  not 
that  statement  to  the  press  was  a  lie,  or  whether  you  were  telling  the 
truth  when  you  told  the  press  you  were  not  a  Communist? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  of  the 
fifth  amendment,  that  the  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  entitled  to  the  privilege.  When  you  at- 
tended Communist  leadership  school,  were  you,  among  other  things, 
taught  the  necessity  of  the  destruction  of  our  Constitution,  including 
the  fifth  amendment  upon  which  you  rely  today  ? 


222  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  protection 
of  the  fifth  amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  the  ground  that  tlie 
answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a  fact,  Mister,  that  you  have  attended  Com- 
munist schools,  leadership  schools,  you  spoke  there,  your  wife  spoke 
there,  you  advocated  the  destruction  of  the  Constitution,  you  advo- 
cated the  destruction  of  the  very  amendment  behind  which  you  so 
cowardly  hide  today  ?    Is  that  not  a  fact  ? 

Mr,  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
the  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 
The  Chairman.  You  are  entitled  to  decline  . 

I  may  say  that  if  you  were  an  officer  in  the  Russian  Army  instead 
of  the  United  States  Army,  if  you  were  charged  with  treason  against 
Communist  Russia,  you  would  not  have  any  fifth  amendment  there,. 
Mister.    And  you  life  insurance  would  be  rather  high. 
(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 
The  Chairman.  Mr.  Cohn? 

Mr.  Cohn.  Mr.  Peress,  were  you,  Avhen  commissioned  in  January  of  j 
1958,  section  organizer  for  the  Communist  Party  in  Queens  County  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  must  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  fifth  amendment  on  the  ground  that  it  might  tend  to 
incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  While  you  were  in  the  Army,  did  you  contribute  a^ 
percentage  of  your  pay  to  the  Communist  Party? 

JNIr.  Peress.  I  decline  again  on  the  same  privilege. 
Mr.  Cohn.  Did  you  attempt  to  recruit  any  military  personnel  into] 
the  Communist  Party  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer;  the  same  privilege. 
The  Chairman.  Wil  you  speak  a  little  louder,  sir? 
Mr,  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  the  question  under  the  protections! 
of  the  fifth  amendment  on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend  to  incrim- 
inate me.    Shall  I  go  through  that  whole  sentence  every  time,  Senator  f\ 

The  Chairman.  If  that  is  what  you  are  relying  upon,  you  will  stat 
the  grounds  for  your  refusal. 

Mr.  Cohn.  Did  you  ask  officers  stationed  with  you  to  attend  Com- 
munist Party  meetings  with  you? 

Mr,  Peress.  I  must  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth 
amendment. 

Mr.  Cohn.  Did  you  make  a  contribution,  through  the  Daily  Worker, 
to  the  defense  fund  for  the  indicted  Communist  leaders? 
Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 
Mr.  Cohn.  I  will  hand  you  a  copy  of  page  12  of  the  Daily  Worker 
for  November  22,  1949,  and  direct  your  attention  to  an  article  entitled 
"Dollars  Keep  Coming  for  Defense  Fund."  It  concludes  with  a  state- 
ment from  the  Daily  Worker — "To  all  of  you  wonderful  people, 
thanks,  thanks  a  million."  There  is  a  short  list  of  names,  and  on  that 
list  of  names  is  the  name  Irv  Peress,  Queens.  I  would  like  for  you  to 
examine  that  and  tell  the  committee  whether  or  not  you  are  the  Trv 
Peress  of  Queens  who  received  this  commendation  from  the  Daily 
Worker  for  a  contribution  to  the  Communist  defense  fund. 

The  Chairman.  While  he  is  examining  that,  may  I  have  the  record 
show  that  Senator  Potter  is  represented  here  by  his  very  able  assistant, 
Robert  Jones.  Senator  Dirksen  is  rej^resented  by  his  equally  able 
assistant,  Mr.  Rainville.     I  want  Mr.  Rainville  and  Mr.  Jones  to  know 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  223 

that  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  Senators,  you  have  the  same 
right  to  ask  questions  which  any  Senator  would  have. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Are  you  the  Irving  Peress  who  received  the  thanks  of 
the  Daily  Worker  for  this  contribution  to  the  Communist  defense 
fund? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  speak  a  little  louder  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Of  course,  Mr.  Chairman- 


Mr.  Faulkner.  Did  you  read  into  the  record  that  this  is  dated 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  hear  from  counsel.  If  you  want  any- 
thing read  into  the  record,  Mr.  Peress  can  read  it  in.  We  will  not 
hear  from  counsel.  I  may  say,  Mr.  Counsel,  that  this  rule  was  not 
made  for  you.  It  was  made  by  the  committee  and  made  unanimously. 
We  give  the  witness  the  right,  which  he  would  not  have  in  a  court,  a 
right  to  confer  with  counsel,  at  any  time  he  cares  to.  Counsel  can 
coach  him  in  his  answers,  which  is  a  right  he  would  not  have  in  court. 
We  do  not  allow  counsel  to  take  part  in  the  proceedings.  The  reason 
for  that  is  obvious.  And  I  am  not  speaking  about  you,  Mr.  Counsel, 
but  I  speak  about  the  general  situation.  If  we  allowed  Communist 
lawyers  to  take  part  in  a  filibuster  proceedings,  we  could  never  hold 
an  intelligible  hearing.  So  if  there  is  anything  you  want  to  say,  you 
will  have  to  abide  by  the  same  rule,  which  is  not  directed  against  you 
personally,  but  you  will  have  to  talk  through  your  client. 

Mr.  Faulkner,  May  I  say  something  on  that,  what  you  just  referred 
to.  Senator? 

The  Chairman.  No,  I  said  we  will  not  hear  from  counsel. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Not  on  this  point.     That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  not  hear  from  counsel  on  any  point.  I  did 
not  make  the  rule.  We  have  4  Republicans,  3  Democrats.  We  unani- 
mously passed  that  rule.  I  must  abide  by  that  rule  the  same  as  you 
must.  If  you  have  something  to  say,  you  can  tell  your  client  and  he 
will  say  it. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  CoHN.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  indicated  when  this  article  was  first 
referred  to,  I  read  the  date  into  the  record,  which  was  November  22, 
1949,  and  I  ask  that  this  entire  article  and  the  page  from  the  Daily 
Worker  be  received  into  evidence.  I  might  state  that  an  examina- 
tion of  the  article  indicates  that  Irv  Peress,  of  Queens,  had  sent  in  a 
dollar  contribution  to  the  defense  fund  for  the  Communist  leaders  to 
accompany  an  entry  which  he  had  made  into  a  contest  being  run  by 
the  Daily  Worker  at  that  period  of  time.  All  of  that  is  set  forth  on 
this  page.     I  ask  that  that  be  received  into  evidence. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  received. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  6"  and  may  be 
found  in  the  files  of  the  subcommittee.) 

Mr.  CoHN.  I  would  call  to  your  attention,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  fact 
that  this  was  obtained  by  the  committee  from  a  public  record  which, 
of  course,  would  have  been  available  to  the  Army  well  before  this  man 
was  handed  a  commission.     It  was  listed  in  the  public  files. 

Now,  referring  to  public  files,  Mr.  Peress,  did  you  take  an  ad  in 
the  15th  anniversary  edition  of  the  Journal  of  the  Abraham  Lincoln 
Brigade,  which  journal  was  sponsored  by  the  Communist  Party  and 


224  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

sent  greetings  to  comrades  on  the  celebration  of  the  15th  anniversary 
of  the  Abraham  Lincohi  Brigade  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  take  an  ad  in  the  10th  anniversary,  appearing 
on  the  back  page  of  the  10th  anniversary  edition  of  the  Journal  of  the 
Abraham  Lincoln  Brigade  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Have  you  been  a  subscriber  to  the  Daily  Worker  for  the 
last  14  years  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  CoHN.  While  you  were  a  captain  and  a  major  in  the  Army,  up 
until  this  month,  did  you  receive  the  Daily  Worker  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  take  the  Daily  Worker  with  you  to  your  Army 
assignment  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  show  the  Daily  Worker  to  officers  stationed 
with  you  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Jones? 

Mr.  Jones.  Mr.  Peress,  when  you  became  an  officer  of  the  Army  of 
the  United  States,  I  assume  that  you  took  the  regular  oath  of  office? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr,  Peress.  Could  I  have  the  identification  of  who  is  question- 
ing me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  try  and  speak  up,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Could  you  identify  the  gentleman  who  is  making  the 
inquiry  ? 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Robert  Jones,  administrative  assistant  to  Sen- 
ator Potter. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Is  he  empowered  by  the  Senate  to  question  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Peress.  The  question  is  did  I  take  the  regular  oath  of  office 
when  I  was  commissioned,  first  commissioned  ? 

Mr.  Jones.  Do  you  want  to  read  the  question  back  ? 

(The  reporter  read  from  his  notes  as  requested.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes. 

Mr.  Jones.  You  did  take  the  regular  oath  of  office.  In  other  words, 
you  did  take  the  oath  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  know  what  you  mean  by  the  regular  oath. 

Mr.  Jones.  The  regular  oath  to  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution, 
you  took  that  oath,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Jones.  Did  you  ever  refuse  to  take  an  oath  ? 
(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  An  oath  to  uphold  the  Constitution? 

Mr.  Jones.  Exactly.     Did  you  ever  refuse  to  take  it  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  No. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  have  the  record  straight.     Did  you  ever  re- 
fuse to  sign  any  oath  or  affidavit  for  the  Army  ? 
(The  witness  conferred  with  his  coimsel.) 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  225 

Mr.  Peress.  None  that  I  can  recall. 

Mr.  Jones.  Now,  Mr.  Peress,  when  you  took  the  oath  to  uphold  and 
defend  the  Constitution,  were  you  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party 
at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  fifth  amend- 
ment, on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Mr.  Jones.  Would  you  while  an  officer  of  the  Army  of  the  United 
States  having  taken  the  oath  to  defend  the  Constitution,  oppose  any 
group  that  advocates  the  violent  overthrow  of  the  Government? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  would  defend  and  uphold  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  taken  in  the  oath. 

Mr.  Jones.  That  isn't  answering  the  question.  In  other  words, 
you  took  the  oath  to  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Having  taken  that  oath,  would  you  then  oppose  any  group 
that  advocates  the  overthrow  of  this  Government  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  would  oppose  any  group  that  would  seek  to  overthrow 
the 

Mr.  Jones.  In  other  words,  you  would  oppose  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  You  are  answering  for  me?  I  would  oppose,  as  my 
oath  states,  any  group  that  would  seek  to  overthrow  the  United  States 
Government  by  force  and  violence  and  unconstitutional  means. 

Mr.  Jones.  In  other  words,  then,  you  would  oppose  the  Communist 
Party? 

Mr.  Peress.  Is  that  a  question  or  a  statement  ? 

Mr.  Jones.  I  am  asking  you.  Would  you  oppose  the  Communist 
Party? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Peress,  at  the  time  you  attended  Communist 
leadership  schools,  were  you  not  taught  the  necessity  of  the  overthrow 
of  this  Government  by  force  and  violence  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  will  be  ordered  to  answer  the  question 
on  the  grounds  that  he  has  waived  the  fifth  amendment  privilege  by 
his  answer  to  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Just  so  that  counsel  and  the  witness  will  be  fully 
informed,  the  Chair  takes  the  position  that  where  you  answer  a  ques- 
tion, you  have  waived  the  fifth  amendment  privilege  as  to  that  entire 
area  of  investigation.  I  have  asked  the  Attorney  General  for  an 
opinion  upon  that  matter.  If  the  Attorney  General  sustains  the  view 
of  the  committee,  then  we  will  heavily  decimate  the  ranks  of  the 
Communist  conspiracy  by  way  of  contempt  actions,  and  convictions, 
against  Communists  like  you,  Major.  If  the  Attorney  General  ren- 
ders a  favorable  opinion,  we  intend  to  ask  for  a  contempt  citation 
against  every  Communist  who  comes  here  and,  by  answering  certain 
questions,  waives  the  fifth  amendment,  and  then  tries  to  invoke  the 
fifth  amendment  in  the  same  area  of  investigation. 

I  tell  you  that  so  that  you  cannot  plead  ignorance  at  some  future 
legal  proceeding. 

I  assume  you  still  refuse  to  answer  ? 


226  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Peress.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Ch.vjrman.  I  am  going  to  hand  you  an  exhibit — do  you  want  to 
mark  this? 

Mr.  CoHN.  Exhibit  7,  Senator. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  7,"  and  may 
be  found  in  the  files  of  the  subcommittee.) 

The  Chairman.  I  am  going  to  hand  you  exhibit  7,  and  ask  you  if 
this  is  the  oath  you  signed,  either  at  the  time  you  got  your  commission 
or  about  that  time  ? 

(Document  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  identify  this  paper  under  the  grounds  that 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  will  be  ordered  to  identify  it. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  This  is  a  blank  paper,  and  I  would  have  to  decline  to 
ansAver  on  the  identification  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  type  of  oath  you  signed? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  couldn't  recall.  I  would  have  to  decline  to  answer. 
I  would  have  to  see  the  papers  I  signed. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  declining  because  you  cannot  recall? 

Mr.  Peress.  No.  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds  of  the  fifth 
amendment,  that  it  might 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  read  that  oath?  Read  it  out  loud  so 
I  can  hear  it. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  read  the  oath. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  read  it  to  refresh  your  rec- 
ollection so  that  you  may  be  able  to  answer  the  question. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  acknowledge  that  I  have  seen  this  state- 
ment before  or  signed  such  a  paper,  on  the  grounds  that  it  might  tend 
to  incriminate  me. 

Tlie  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  read  it. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  read  it. 

The  Chairman.  Hand  that  back  to  me,  please. 

(Document  handed  to  the  chairman.) 

Mr.  Jones.  Mr.  Peress,  you  have  already  stated  that  you  took  the 
oath  to  uphold  the  Constitution  when  you  Avere  connnissioned  a  cap- 
tain;  is  that  correct? 

(The  Avitness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  To  my  recollection,  on  getting  my  commission  as  a  cap- 
tain I  Avas  sent  a  number  of  forms,  and  I  signed  them  and  sent  them 
back.    There  Avas  no  official  SAvearing-in  ceremony. 

Mr.  Jones.  You  just  said  a  fcAv  minutes  ago  that  you  took  the  oath 
to  u])hold  the  Constitution.    That  is  in  the  official  record. 

(The  Avitness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  If  the  oath  Avas  in  there,  I  took  the  oath. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Jones.  Mr.  Peress,  Avill  you  please  examine  this  statement? 

The  Chairman.  Those  Avill  be  made  exhibits  8  and  9. 

(The  documents  referred  to  Avere  marked  "Exhibits  Nos.  8  and  9," 
and  may  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  subcommittee.) 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  227 

(Documents  handed  to  the  witness.) 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  While  the  witness  is  examining  that,  may  I  ask  a 
question  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  legal  counsel  for  the  Army  ? 

The  information  we  have  is  that  this  man  signed  affidavits  as  to 
nonmembership  in  the  Communist  Party  and  subversive  groups.  Is 
it  the  position  of  the  Army  that  by  the  honorable  discharge  which 
he  received  after  he  was  before  the  committee,  that  he  had  been  re- 
moved from  the  court-martial  jurisdiction  of  the  Army;  or  does  the 
Army  take  the  position  they  have  jurisdiction  to  court-martial  this 
fifth-amendment  Communist  for  false  swearing,  of  which  he  is  ob- 
viously guilty? 

Mr,  John  Adams  (legal  counsel  to  the  Department  of  the  Army, 
"Washington,  D.  C).  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  I  know  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is — you  are  the  legal  counsel  for  the 
Army,  and  I  assumed  you  discussed  this.  I  know  you  are  aware  of 
the  fact  that  I  have  been  discussing  it  now  since  he  got  the  honorable 
discharge.  The  question  is,  Has  he  been  removed  from  the  court- 
martial  jurisdiction  of  the  Army,  or  does  the  Army  take  the  position 
that  even  though  he  received  his  honorable  discharge,  he  can  still  be 
court-martialed  for  false  swearing  or  any  other  crime  of  which  he  is 
guilty  ? 

Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Chairman,  a  separation  such  as  Major  Peress  re- 
ceived on  February  2  is  a  final  action.  Under  the  Uniform  Code  of 
Military  Justice,  there  is  a  section  in  the  law  which  permits  the  Army 
to  court-martial  an  individual  for  offenses  which  call  for  penalties  in 
excess  of  5  years,  provided  the  offenses  are  known. 

I  submitted  the  questions  raised  by  3-our  letter  to  the  Judge  Advo- 
cate General  of  the  Army,  who  has  the  responsibility,  by  statute,  in 
the  Army  for  military  justice,  and  he  gave  me  an  opinion  that  prob- 
ably a  court-martial  against  the  individual  could  not  be  sustained  on 
the  facts  now  before  the  Army. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  on  the  grounds  that  this  would  not 
call  for  a  penalty  in  excess  of  5  years,  he  has  been  removed  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Army? 

Mr.  Adams.  He  has  been  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Army, 
and  the  Army  is  not  aware  of  any  offenses  which  have  been  brought 
officially  to  its  attention  under  which  he  could  be  tried. 

The  Chairman.  You  sav  the  Army  is  not  aware  of  any  offenses, 
Mr.  Adams  ?  "  ^ 

Mr.  Adams.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  pretend  to  cross-examine  the  legal  counsel 
for  the  Army.  You  are  here  as  a  guest  of  the  committee.  But  this 
matter  disturbs  me  very  greatly.  I  have  heard  that  statement  before. 
You  have  the  evidence,  the  sworn  testimony,  that  this  man  was  part 
of  the  Communist  conspiracy.  You  have  that  from  a  policewoman 
of  the  city  of  New  York.  It  has  been  available  to  the  Army  for  years, 
ever  since  she  has  been  filing  her  reports.  You  have  the  information 
that  he  took  a  false  oath  when  he  swore  that  he  was  not  a  member  of 
the  Communist  Party.  You  have  his  refusal  to  answer  questions 
before  a  Senate  committee.  His  refusal  to  answer  questions  by  the 
Army  would  certainly  constitute  conduct  unbecoming  to  an  officer. 

I  do  not  think  you  want  the  record  to  stand,  John,  as  saying  that 
you  were  not  aware  of  any  offense.    You  said  that  was  not  brought 


228  HEARmGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

officially  to  your  attention.  May  I  say  that  you  were  here  in  an  official 
capacity.  Everything  that  this  committee  develops,  including  what 
we  develop  in  an  executive  session,  is  your  official  knowledge. 

As  I  say,  I  do  not  want  to  put  you  on  the  stand  here  and  cross-exam- 
ine you,  but  I  am  just  curious  about  this  fantastic  procedure  where  we 
have  this  man  before  us,  and  we  invited  the  legal  counsel  for  the  Army 
to  sit  in,  listen  to  all  of  his  testimony.  He  refused  to  answer,  invoking 
the  fifth  amendment.  I  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Army  and  asked 
for  his  court  martial.  Before  Secretary  Stevens  could  get  back  to 
the  United  States,  somebody  in  the  Army — and  I  cannot  conceive  they 
were  acting  in  good  faith — gave  him  a  hurry-up  honorable  discharge^ 
My  letter  was  made  public  on  Monday,  February  1 ;  and  Tuesday  morn- 
ing, February  2,  this  man — about  whom  you  have  so  much  testimony 
about  organizing  Communist  cells,  holding  Communist  meetings  in 
his  home,  attencling  Communist  leadership  schools,  his  refusal  to 
answer — was  given  an  honorable  discharge. 

As  you  know,  John,  every  Senator  receives  dozens  of  letters  every 
month  from  young  men  who  have  good  reasons  for  not  wanting  to 
serve.  They  want  honorable  discharges.  If  this  is  the  pattern  that 
is  to  be  followed,  if  all  you  need  to  do  is  to  join  the  conspiracy  against 
this  Nation  to  receive  the  stamp  of  honor  from  your  country,  get  an 
honorable  discharge,  then  the  Communist  Party  perhaps  should  go  out 
and  recruit  all  the — well,  although  I  do  not  think  they  would  have 
much  success,  go  out  and  try  to  recruit  the  young  men  who  would  like 
to  get  out  of  the  Army. 

I  am  going  to  ask  you  this,  but  I  am  not  going  to  ask  you  to  answer 
it  now :  I  am  going  to  ask  that  you  give  us  the  names  of  every  officer, 
every  member  of  the  military  personnel  or  any  civilian  who  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  this  man's  promotion,  knowing  that  he  was  a  Com- 
munist ;  anything  to  do  with  his  change  of  orders,  knowing  that  he  was 
a  Communist ;  anything  to  do  with  his  honorable  discharge,  knowing 
he  was  a  Communist,  knowing  I  have  suggested  a  court  martial  for 
him. 

I  am  curious  to  know  whether  or  not  that  information  will  be  forth- 
coming without  a  subpena.  If  not,  this  is  something  which  will  not 
be  allowed  to  drop.  I  want  to  assure  everyone  concerned,  if  it  is 
humanly  possible  I  intend  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  it. 

I  think  here  you  have  the  key  to  the  deliberate  Communist  infiltra- 
tion of  our  Armed  Forces,  the  most  dangerous  thing.  And  the  men 
responsible  for  the  honorable  discharge  of  a  Communist  are  just  as 
guilty  as  the  man  who  belongs  to  the  conspiracy  himself. 

So  may  I  ask  you,  will  the  information  be  forthcoming  without 
subpena  ?  If  not,  I  intend  to  take  this  right  to  the  very  limit  to  get 
the  names  of  all  of  those  individuals,  John.  If  you  are  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  answer  that  today,  I  want  to  know  when  you  can  answer  it. 

Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  Secretary  has  given  you  a  letter, 
which  you  received  yesterday,  which  discussed  the  facts  of  this  case 
as  he  now  knows  them.  He  is  investigating  to  determine  such  addi- 
tional facts  as  he  can. 

If  there  can  be  developed  any  indication  of  conspiracy  of  a  sub- 
versive nature  with  reference  to  the  handling  of  this  or  any  other 
officer  assignments,  those  matters  will  be  prosecuted  by  the  Army. 

The  Chairman.  John,  I  will  not  take  any  double-talk,  any  evasion 
on  this.    Either  the  Army  is  going  to  give  me  the  names  of  the  indi- 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  229 

viduals  responsible  for  coddling  and  honorably  discharging  a  known 
Communist — not  only  a  run-of-the-mill  but  an  important  member 
of  the  Communist  conspiracy — or  the  Army  is  going  to  refuse. 

I  may  say  now,  for  the  benefit  of  everyone  concerned,  if  the  Army 
refuses,  I  intend  to  take  this  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  I  intend 
to  try  to  have  cited  for  contempt  any  man  in  the  military — and  I  do 
not  care  whether  he  is  a  civilian  or  an  officer — who  tries  to  cover  up 
those  responsible  for  this  most  shameful,  most  f antatistic  situation. 

If  you  cannot  answer  that  today,  I  would  like  to  know  when  I  can 
get  the  answer.  It  is  a  simple  decision.  I  want  to  know  whether  or 
not  there  is  a  new  day  in  the  Army  or  not.  I  have  a  lot  of  respect  for 
Secretary  Stevens,  and  I  received  a  letter  which  I  cannot  conceive  of 
Secretary  Stevens  having  himself  written.    He  may  have. 

Complete  double-talk  does  not  answer  any  of  our  questions.  We 
are  not  going  to  take  this,  John,  in  this  case.  We  are  going  to  make 
an  example  here  and  see  if  we  cannot  set  the  pattern  for  a  cleanout 
of  those  who  have  been  invited  into  the  military. 

If  the  new  Secretary  wants  to  do  that  himself,  very  good.  I  tliink 
he  will.  But  I  will  want  to  know  within  24  hours  whether  or  not  the 
Army  is  going  to  give  us  the  names  of  those  whom  I  just  indicated. 
We  will  ask  for  that  information  by  tomorrow  night. 

If  that  period  of  time  you  think  is  unreasonable,  we  will  give  you 
additional  time.  I  will  be  in  Albany  holding  hearings  tomorrow,, 
and  I  will  want  to  get  that  information  there. 

Mr.  Peress,  just  1  or  2  more  questions.  Wliile  you  were  an  officer 
in  the  Army,  did  you  ever  have  access  to  any  decoding  or  encoding 
machines  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  ever  O.  D.?  Were  you  ever  officer  of 
the  day  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  often  did  you  serve  as  officer  of  the  day? 

Mr.  Peress.  Dental  O.  D.  That  just  covers  the  dental  clinic  for 
emergency  treatment  that  may  come  up.  There  is  no  administrative 
responsibility.  It  is  just  to  take  care  of  emergency  dental  situations. 
I  was  O.  D.  in  rotation.  It  came  up  depending  on  the  number  of 
dental  officers.  If  we  had  20  dentat  officers,  it  was  every  3  weeks. 
Wlien  we  were  down  lower,  it  would  come  around  more  frequently. 

The  Chairman.  Your  testimony  is,  then,  that  during  all  the  time 
you  were  in  the  military,  you  never  had  access  to  any  encoding  or 
decoding  machines? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  even  know  what  they  are. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  don't  know  what  they  are? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  have  never  seen  such  a  machine. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  an  encoding  machine  is? 

Mr.  Peress.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  know  what  is  meant  by  an  encoding 
machine  ? 
Mr.  Peress.  No,  I  don't. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  is  meant  by  a  decoding 
machine  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  That  I  can  figure  out. 


230  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  You  can  figure  that  out. 

Did  you  ever  see  any  messages,  either  before  or  after  they  were 
decoded,  either  while  you  were  an  officer  of  the  day  or  otherwise? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Unless  you  mean  my  orders  to  take  a  leave  of  absence 
or  to  take  part  of  my  annual  leave.  I  don't  know  if  that  is  a  coded 
or  decoded  message.     I  thought  it  was  mimeographed. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  you  know  what  I  mean.  I  am  just  trying 
to  get  the  facts. 

Is  it  your  testimony  that,  as  far  as  you  know,  other  than  routine 
orders,  change  of  station,  leave  orders,  other  than  orders  of  that  kind 
you  never  saw  any  material,  either  before  or  after  it  was  decoded?  I 
have  special  reference  to  the  times  when  you  served  as  O.  D. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  There  is  just  a  dental  O.  D,  form,  the  name  of  the 
patient,  serial  number,  and  what  you  did  for  him.  That  is  the  only 
official  printed  material  that  you  handle  on  O.  D. 

The  Chairman.  General  Zwicker,  may  I  ask  you  a  question.  You 
can  stay  right  there. 

Whenever  I  served  as  O.  D. — and  I  think  this  has  been  general  prac- 
tice in  the  Marine  Corps,  the  Navy,  and  the  Army — you  normally  had 
access  to  the  encoding  and  decoding  machines.  Ordinarily  an  officer 
of  the  rank  of  major  or  above  must  take  his  stint  at  encoding  or 
decoding. 

Could  you  tell  me  whether  or  not  that  has  been  the  practice  at  Camp 
Kilmer? 

Brig.  Gen.  Ralph  Zwicker  (commanding  officer,  Camp  Kilmer, 
N.  J.).  It  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  so  far  as  you  know,  this  individual 
never  had  access  to  any  confidential  or  secret  material  ? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answer  is  what? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Just  one  other  question.  General.  I  did  not  intend 
to  impose  upon  you  this  morning. 

His  Army  file  contains  reference  to  his  being  considered  for — and 
I  think  I  am  quoting  it  correctly — sensitive  work  in  May  of  1953. 
Would  you  have  any  idea  what  that  sensitive  work  was?  If  you  do 
not  know,  we  will  show  you  the  file  to  refresh  your  recollection.  The 
file  shows  that  in  May,  that  is,  after  it  was  fully  known  that  he  was  a 
Communist,  the  file  shows  that  he  was  considered  for  sensitive  work. 

The  file  does  not  show  whether  he  was  rejected  or  not.  Just  offliand, 
you  wouldn't  know  what  that  sensitive  work  would  be? 

General  Zwicker.  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  I  wonder  if  you  can  do  this:  You  are  appearing 
this  afternoon  in  executive  session.  I  would  like  to  have  you  here  to 
listen  to  all  of  this  testimony.  If  you  have  an  aide  with  you,  I  wonder 
if  you  could  have  somebody  call  Camp  Kilmer  and  find  out  just  what 
the  sensitive  work  was  that  he  was  being  considered  for. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  might  be  able  to  help  you  on  that. 

General  Zwicker.  Even  if  I  did  know,  I  would  not  be  privileged  to 
tell  you,  under  the  Executive  order  which  forbids  us  to  discuss  matters 
of  that  nature. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  231 

The  Chairman.  I  may  say,  General,  you  will  be  in  difficulty  if  you 
refuse  to  tell  us  what  sensitive  work  a  Communist  was  being  consid- 
ered for.  There  is  no  Executive  order  for  the  purpose  of  protecting 
Communists.  I  want  to  tell  you  right  now,  you  will  be  asked  that 
question  this  afternoon.  You  will  be  ordered  to  make  available  that 
information. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  think  I  might  know  the  answer  to  that,  though  I  never 
heard  about  it.    May  I  answer? 

The  Chairman.  You  may. 

Mr.  Peress.  Apparently  I  was  considered  the  best  dentist  at  the 
post  there,  and  they  needed  an  extra  prosthodontist.  And  where  I  was 
doing  general  dentistry,  which  is  filling  and  routine  dentistry,  they 
needed  another  man  to  help  the  prosthodontist. 

In  approximately  May  1953, 1  was  unofficially  promoted  to  the  pros- 
thetic section,  where  I  worked  through  August;  and  then,  because 
there  was  a  falling  off  in  operative  work,  I  was  put  back  to  doing 
operative  work,  because  of  the  production  there.  The  records  will 
show  that  my  production  in  operative  was  also  the  greatest  in  the 
clinic. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  return  to  the  questions. 

Mr.  Peress.  This  referred  to  a  change  of  M.  O.  S.,  they  called  it. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  dealing,  not  with  sensitive  nerves  in  the 
teeth ;  we  are  dealing  with  a  security  matter,  I  asked  whether  or  not 
the  general  knew  what  sensitive  security  work  you  were  being  con- 
sidered for.    You  say  that  had  to  do  with  the  teeth. 

Mr.  Peress,  Well,  it  was  approximately  May  1953,  that  the  colonel 
called  me  down  and  said  that  they  had  been  considering  me — not 
a  promotion  in  rank,  but  a  promotion  in  work — to  go  up  to  prosthetics 
and  work  there.    It  is  my  own  opinion  that  I  was  very  good. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Peress,  the  record  shows  that  you  signed  a 
document  identical  to  exhibit  9,  which  I  will  show  you.  You  signed 
that  under  oath,  certifying  nonmembership  in  subversive  organiza- 
tions, naming  the  organizations 

Mr,  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman,  Let  me  finish  before  you  decline. 

When  you  signed  that,  were  you  falsely  swearing,  or  were  you 
telling  the  truth '? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr,  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth 
amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  entitled  to  decline. 

Mr,  Rainville.  I  am  Harold  Rainville,  from  Senator  Dirksen's 
office.  While  the  Senator  is  seeking  certain  material  which  he  wants 
to  question  you  on,  may  I  just  develop  one  thing  which  I  think  has 
been  overlooked  here. 

Did  you  ever  serve  overseas? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel,) 

Mr.  Peress.  No, 

Mr,  Rainville,  Were  you  ever  ordered  to  go  overseas  ? 

Mr.  Peress,  Yes, 

Mr.  Rainville.  Were  your  orders  then  changed  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes, 

Mr,  Rainville.  Do  you  know  why  they  were  changed  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  can  only  surmise.     I  was  given  no  official  reason. 


■232  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

I  Mr.  Rainville.  Were  you  ever  interrogated  after  the  change,  any 
discussion  as  to  your  future  assignment  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  i  had  orders  to  go  to  Fort  Lewis  and  to  proceed  from 
there  to  Yokohama,  Japan.  I  got  to  Fort  Lewis,  and  I  got  in  touch 
with  the  Red  Cross.  They  secured  an  emergency  leave  for  me.  I  had 
compassionate  reasons  to  request  a  reassignment.  Tliere  are  Army 
regulations  under  the  title  of  "Compassionate  Reassignment." 

The  Red  Cross  got — after  investigating  the  case — got  the  time  for 
me,  and  through  channels  I  was  reassigned  to  Camp  Kilmer. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Do  you  mind  telling  us  what  the  emergency  was? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Well,  as  you  know,  sir,  they  are  part  of  the  record,  and 
I  do  mind  telling  you,  because  I  don't  feel  it  is  integral  to  the  investi- 
gation that  you  are  carrying  on  now,  the  reasons  for  it.  But  they 
are  part  of  the  official  records. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Well,  if  I  am  correct  in  my  information,  it  was 
because  your  6-year-old  daughter  needed  psychiatric  treatment ;  is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Peress.  She  was  undergoing  it  at  the  time.  That  was  one  of 
the  reasons. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Did  you  get  any  aid  in  receiving  that  cancellation 
of  your  embarkation  orders,  other  than  the  Red  Cross  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Could  you  be  more  specific  about  that,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Rainville.  Let  me  be  a  little  bit  explanatory.  We  in  the  Sen- 
ators' offices  are  frequently  called  upon  for  emergency  help  whenever 
there  is  a  situation  of  this  kind.  We  frequently  find  that  in  situa- 
tions which  are  much  more  critical,  a  dying  wife  who  is  dying  of  can- 
cer or  a  dying  child,  it  makes  it  very  difficult  for  us  to  stop  an  em- 
barkation order  even  for  a  temporary  reason. 

I  have  no  doubt  your  daughter  needed  the  treatment.  Neverthe- 
less, it  seems  a  little  odd  to  me  that  you  should  be  completely  re- 
assigned. A  man  with  the  ability  as  a  dentist  such  as  you  have  would 
certainly  have  been  needed  abroad.  I  wanted  to  know.  Did  you  know 
somebody  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office?  You  didn't  speak  to  any 
Congressman  or  Senator,  and  yet  just  the  Red  Cross  was  able  to  stop 
it? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  didn't  speak  to  any  Congressman  or  Senator,  and  the 
reasons  are  not  as  far-fetched  as  you  attempt  to  seem  to  understand 
them  at  this  point.  As  I  say,  the  authority  exists  in  the  Army  regu- 
lations, which  are  also  available  to  you,  and  the  Red  Cross  does  the 
investigating  as  to  whether  there  is  really  a  compassionate  need  for 
consideration  of  the  case  as  to  stop  an  embarkation. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  in  fairness  to  the  Red  Cross — I  do  not  Iniow 
who  investigated  this  case — as  I  understand  it,  the  Red  Cross  merely 
makes  an  investigation  and  does  not  take  any  active  part  in  getting 
a  change  or  cancellation  of  orders.  The  Red  Cross  merely  reports 
the  facts.     I  believe  that  is  correct.    I  may  be  wrong  in  that. 

Mr.  Peress.  As  I  was  saying,  the  Red  Cross  reports  on  whether 
there  exists  sufficient  reason  to  warrant  a  consideration  by  the  Army, 
because  otherwise  the  orders  cannot  be  halted  in  time. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Very  f requentlv  the  Red  Cross  comes  to  us  and  asks 
for  our  aid  because  very  frequently  they  alone  cannot  get  these  things 
•done  in  the  time  allowed. 


HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301  233 

My  question  is,  if  the  Ked  Cross  did  this,  and  did  it  alone  for  you, 
from  my  experience  in  handling  hundreds  of  these  cases  a  week,  for 
what  is  trivial  compared  to  other  things — not  to  you,  of  course,  a 
trivial  reason — I  would  like  to  know  if  you  did  not  know  someone 
some  place,  somebody  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office,  perhaps  a  party 
member  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  To  my  knowledge,  I  know  nobody  in  the  Adjutant 
General's  office,  without  qualification. 

Mr.  Rainville.  In  1949,  did  you  serve  in  a  Communist  cell  with 
anybody  who  might  have  had  influence  in  the  Army,  who  was  an 
officer  in  the  Army  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  That  question  I  decline  to  answer,  on  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  Rainville.  I  presume  it  is  useless  to  ask  you  whether  or  not 
that  person  still  is  in  the  Adjutant  General's  office  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Wliich  person  ? 

Mr.  Rainville.  The  person  you  decline  to  answer  about. 

Mr.  Peress.  Does  such  a  person  exist  because  of  the  posing  of  the 
question  ? 

Mr.  Rainville.  I  would  presume  if  he  didn't  exist,  it  would  be  easier 
for  you  to  say  no  than  to  decline  to  answer. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  You  will  either  talk  for  the  record  or  you  will  talk 
only  to  your  counsel.  I  will  hear  none  of  these  speeches  off  the  record 
from  you.  If  you  want  to  discuss  any  matter  with  your  counsel,  you 
will  do  it  in  an  undertone  so  that  only  you  and  he  can  hear  it.  Other- 
wise you  will  speak  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Just  one  last  question.  Your  daughter  is  still 
undergoing  these  treatments,  and  that  is  the  reason  you  were  still 
here  until  February  2  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  know  the  reason  I  am  here,  but  my  daughter  is 
still  undergoing  the  treatments. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  one  further  question.  Did  a  member  of 
the  Communist  Party  help  you  get  your  orders  changed  from  Yoko- 
hama to  Camp  Kilmer? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  that  it 
might  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  successful  in  forming  a  Communist  cell 
at  Camp  Kilmer  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  Did  your  wife  attend  a  Communist  leadership 
school  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Just  to  refresh  your  recollection,  we  will  give  you 
the  name  of  the  school. 

Mr.  CoHN.  It  was  the  leadership  training  course  at  t>»e  Inwood 
Victory  Club,  which  was  conducted  at  139  Dyckman  Street. 

The  Chairman.  With  your  memory  refreshed,  did  you  attend  that 
leadership  school  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  on  the  grounds  thar 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  me,  under  the  fifth  amendment. 


234  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman,  How  long  have  you  been  married? 

Mr.  Peress.  What  is  the  question  ? 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  married,  just  rouglily? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Is  that  relevant  to  this  investigation  ? 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Peress.  Since  June  7, 1942. 

The  Chairman.  Does  your  wife  have  any  brothers  or  sisters  work- 
ing for  the  Government  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Or  for  any  Government  agency? 
■  Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  You  go  right  ahead,  Mister,  and  decline. 

Do  you  have  any  brothers  or  sisters  working  for  any  Government 
agency  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  names  of  your  brothers. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  William 

Tlie  Chairman.  What  is  his  last  name?    The  same  as  yours? 

Mr.  Peress.  The  same  as  mine. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  address? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Brooklyn,    I  will  have  to  look  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that. 

The  Chairman.  Whereabouts  in  Brooklyn  does  William  live? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  know  the  name  of  the  section. 

The  Chairman.  The  last  question  was:  Where  does  William  live 
in  Brooklyn? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  said  I  don't — what  do  you  mean;  the  street? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  as  best  you  can  tell  us. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  don't  know  what  street  he  lives  on? 

Mr,  Peress.  I  am  not  sure.    I  know  how  to  go  there. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  go  there? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  drive  on  the  Belt  Parkway  from  my  house  and  go 
down  Flatlands  Avenue.  I  don't  know  the  streets  where  I  turn  over 
to  go  there. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  brother's  occupation? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline,  sir,  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  Does  he  work  for  the  Government,  the  United 
States  Government? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline. 


i 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  235 

The  Chairman.  How  many  other  brothers  do  you  have  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  One. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  Peress.  Same  last  name;  Abraham  Herbert. 

The  Chairman.  And  where  does  Abraham  work  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Peress.  Where  does  he  work? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Peress.  10  Hillside  Avenue. 

The  Chairinian.  10  Hillside  Avenue.  Wliat  kind  of  work  does 
he  do? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Let's  put  it  this  way:  Does  he  work  either  in  a 
defense  plant  or  for  any  Government  agency  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question  under  the  fifth  amend- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  feel  if  you  were  to  tell  us  the  truth  in  answer 
to  that  question  that  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  It  might. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  feel  it  might? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  feel  it  might. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  feel  if  you  were  to  tell  us  the  truth  as  to 
where  William  worked  that  answer  might  tend  to  incriminate  you? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  feel  it  might. 

The  Chairman.  Again,  while  I  don't  think  I  owe  any  duty  to  mem- 
bers of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  I  do  want  to  let  you  know  what  this 
committee  intends  to  do,  insofar  as  I,  as  chairman,  can  get  them  to 
do  it,  so  you  cannot  claim  you  were  entrapped  or  claim  ignorance  at 
some  future  proceedings.  I  intend  to  find  out,  obviously,  what  your 
two  brothers  are  doing.  If  their  occupation  could  in  no  way  tend 
to  incriminate  you,  I  will  ask  that  you  be  cited  for  contempt.  I  just 
want  you  to  know  that.  I  just  want  you  to  know  that  you  Communists 
cannot  play  with  the  fifth  amendment  before  this  committee. 

Do  you  have  any  sisters  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  While  Mr.  Peress  is  consulting  with  his  counsel, 
Mr.  Adams,  what  I  would  like  to  have  this  afternoon  is  the  name  of 
the  individual  who  has  been  in  charge  of  Peress'  personnel  file  which 
we  subpenaed.  I  would  like  to  have  him  before  us  under  oath  on  the 
question  of  the  completeness  of  the  file. 

I  want  to  tell  you,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  have  always  been 
laying  our  cards  strictly  on  the  table  with  you  and  with  Mr.  Stevens, 
that  we  have  an  inventory  of  the  file  at  the  time  we  subpenaed  it,  and 
we  have  compared  that  with  the  file  as  handed  to  us.  So  I  will  want 
the  man  who  was  in  charge  of  this  file,  who  answered  the  subpena  and 
presented  it — I  want  him  here  under  oath  to  explain  the  discrepancy 
between  the  inventory  which  we  received  from  another  Government 
agency  and  the  inventory  as  the  file  was  handed  to  us. 

I  assume  that  you  might  have  some  difficulty  getting  him  in  here 

this  afternoon.     If  possible,  I  would  like  to  have  him  this  afternoon; 

and  if  not,  we  will  want  to  hear  him  in  Washington  next  week. 

Mr.  Peress.  I  will  decline  to  answer  that  under  the  fifth  amendment. 

The  Chairman.  You  decline  to   answer  whether  you   have  any 

sisters  ? 

52461 — 54 16 


236  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Mr.  Peress.  I  thought  you  were  back  on  the  other  point.  No;  I 
have  no  sisters. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  sisters.     Is  your  father  living  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  working  for  the  Government? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counseh) 

Mr.  Peress.  I  decline  to  answer  that  question. 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  What  is  you  father's  first  name  ? 

Mr.  Peress.  On  the  last  question,  my  father  is  not  working  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Your  father  is  not  working  ? 

(The  witness  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Peress,  I  realize  this  as  a  waste  of  the  com- 
mittee's time  to  ask  you  this  question,  except  that  we  want  the  record 
complete.  Can  you  tell  us,  can  you  shed  any  light  at  all  on  the  ques- 
tion of  why  you  were  commissioned,  why  you  were  promoted,  why 
you  were  given  an  honorable  discharge  after  the  public  records  dis- 
closed that  you  were  a  Communist  Party  leader;  after  the  record 
shows  as  early  as  April  of  1953  your  commanding  officer  and  the  com- 
manding officer  of  the  First  Army  joined  in  a  recommendation  to  have 
you  immediately  separated  after  you  refused  to  tell  the  Army  whether 
you  were  a  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy  ? 

As  I  say,  I  realize  it  is  a  waste  of  time  asking  you  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, but  I  want  to  have  the  record  complete.     Wliat  is  your  answer? 

Mr.  Peress.  I  really  couldn't  make  a  question  out  of  it.  Would 
you  repeat  it  please  ? 

The  Chairman.  No,  it  is  not  necessary. 

Mr.  Peress.  What  was  the  significance  of  April  1953  ? 

The  Chairman.  May  I  say,  for  the  benefit  of  your  counsel,  while 
this  fifth  amendment  Communist  may  have  been  removed  from  the 
court  martial  jurisdiction  of  the  Army,  he  has  not  been  removed  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  our  civil  courts.  I  am  referring  the  entire  record 
in  this  case,  both  in  executive  session  and  in  public  session,  together 
with  the  affidavits  which  he  has  signed,  obviously  false  affidavits, 
to  the  Justice  Department  with  the  suggestion  that  this  be  submitted 
to  a  grand  jury  for  criminal  prosecution. 

I  may  say  to  counsel,  as  a  courtesy  to  counsel,  if  you  will  keep  in 
touch  with  the  chief  counsel  of  our  committee,  Mr.  Roy  Cohn,  he  will 
keep  you  informed  as  to  the  steps  that  we  take  in  Mr.  Peress'  case. 

Mr.  Peress,  you  are  not  released  from  the  subpena.  You  will  con- 
sider yourself  under  subpena. 

Let  me  ask  counsel,  when  we  want  this  individual  again  would 
you  prefer  that  we  notify  you,  or  would  you  prefer  that  the  notice 
go  directly  to  Peress  ? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  You  may  notify  me. 

The  Charman.  We  try  to  give  sufficient  notice  so  that  it  can  fit  into 
your  other  work. 

I  assume  4  or  5  days  or  a  week's  time  would  be  sufficient? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  We  are  ready,  willing,  and  able  to  testify  at  any 
time  we  are  called  upon.  We  came  down  here  the  last  time  without 
subpena,  in  executive  session. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Yes.     You  were  ordered  down  by  the  Army. 

Mr.  FAUiiKNER.  There  was  no  order,  Mr.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  waste  any  time  on  that. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  237 

You  understand,  ]\Ir.  Peress,  you  are  under  subpena.  Your  coun- 
sel will  be  notified  when  you  are  to  return  before  the  committee. 

This  afternoon  at  2 :  30,  we  will  hear  the  Army,  certain  Army  offi- 
cers, in  executive  session. 

Again,  may  I  say  that  the  legal  counsel  for  the  Army  is  invited  to- 
be  present,  if  he  cares  to. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Are  we  requested  to  remain  for  the  rest  of  the  day  ? 

The  Chairman.  No.  You  will  be  notified  when  you  are  wanted 
again. 

(Whereupon,  at  12 :  15  p.  m.,  the  public  hearing  was  recessed,  subject 
to  call.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  BRIG.  GEN.  RALPH  W.  ZWICKER,  UNITED  STATES 
ARMY;  ACCOMPANIED  BY  CAPT.  W.  J.  WOODWARD,  MEDICAL 
CORPS,  UNITED  STATES  ARMY 

General  Zwicker.  I  do. 

Before  we  start,  there  is  no  need  for  a  medical  officer  to  be  in  here. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  O.  K. 

Mr.  CoHN.  A  man  who  is  his  own  lawyer  has  a  fool  for  a  client, 
and  it  is  the  same  thing  with  a  man  who  tries  to  be  his  own  doctor. 

General,  could  we  have  your  full  name? 

General  Zwicker.  Ralph  W.  Zwicker. 

Mr,  CoHN.  General,  to  see  if  we  can  save  a  little  time  here,  isn't  the 
situation  this — by  the  way,  you  have  been  commanding  officer  at  Kilmer 
since  when? 

General  Zwicker.  Since  the  middle  of  July  last  year. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Has  the  Peress  case  come  to  your  attention  since  that 
time  ?     I  am  not  asking  questions  about  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

Mr.  CoHN.  It  has  come  to  your  attention  and  you  have  a  familiarity 
with  that  case? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Now,  general,  would  you  like  to  be  able  to  tell  us  exactly 
what  happened  in  that  case,  and  what  steps  you  took  and  others  took 
down  at  Kilmer  to  take  action  against  Peress  a  long  time  before  action 
was  finally  forced  by  the  committee  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  a  toughie. 

Mr.  CoHN.  All  I  am  asking  you  now  is  if  you  could,  if  you  were  at 
liberty  to  do  so,  would  you  like  to  be  in  a  position  to  tell  us  that  story  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Well,  may  I  say  that  if  I  were  in  a  position  to  do 
so,  I  would  be  perfectly  glad  to  give  the  committee  any  information 
that  they  desired. 

Mr.  CoHN.  You  certainly  feel  that  that  information  would  not 
reflect  unfavorably  on  you ;  is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  Definitely  not. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  would  not  reflect  unfavorably  on  a  number  of  other 
people  at  Kilmer  and  the  First  Army  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Definitely  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  reflect  unfavorably  upon  some  of  them, 
of  course  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  I  can't  answer,  sir.    I  don't  know. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  know  that  somebody  has  kept  this  man 
on,  knowing  he  was  a  Communist,  do  you  not  ? 


238  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  somebody  has  kept  him  on  know- 
ing that  he  has  refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist,  do  you 
not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  afraid  that  would  come  under  the  category 
of  the  Executive  order,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  What? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  afraid  an  answer  to  that  question  would 
come  under  the  category  of  the  Presidential  Executive  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer  the  question. 

General  Zwicker.  Would  you  repeat  the  question,  please? 

Mr.  CoHN.  Read  it  to  the  general. 

(The  question  referred  to  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer,  Mr.  Chairman, 
on  the  grounds  of  the  directive,  Presidential  directive,  which,  in  my 
interpretation,  will  not  permit  me  to  answer  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  somebody  signed  or  authorized  an 
honorable  discharge  for  this  man,  knowing  that  he  was  a  fifth  amend- 
ment Communist,  do  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  know  that  an  lionorable  discharge  was  signed 
for  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  The  day  the  honorable  discharge  was  signed,  were 
you  aware  of  the  fact  that  he  had  appeared  before  our  committee  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  was. 

The  Chairman.  And  had  refused  to  ansAver  certain  questions? 

General  Zw^icker.  No,  sir,  not  specifically  on  answering  any  ques- 
tions.   I  knew  that  he  had  appeared  before  your  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Didn't  you  read  the  news  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  read  the  news  releases. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  news  releases  were  to  the  effect  that  he  had 
refused  to  tell  whether  he  was  a  Communist,  and  that  there  was  evi- 
dence that  he  had  attended  Communist  leadership  schools.  It  was  on 
all  the  wire  service  stories,  was  it  not  ?  You  knew  generally  what  he 
was  here  for,  did  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes;  indeed. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  knew  generally  that  he  had  refused  to  tell 
whethei^fte  was  a  Communist,  did  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  whether  he  refused  to  tell  whether 
he  was  a  Communist. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  commanding  oflScer  there? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  the  commanding  general. 

The  Chairman.  Wlien  an  officer  appears  before  a  committee  and 
refuses  to  answer,  would  you  not  read  that  story  rather  carefully? 

Genera]  Zwicker.  I  read  the  press  releases. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  General,  you  knew,  did  you  not,  that  he 
appeared  before  the  committee  and  refused,  on  the  grounds  of  the 
fifth  amendment,  to  tell  about  all  of  his  Communist  activities?  You 
knew  that,  did  you  not? 

General  Zwicker.  I  knew  everything  that  was  in  the  press. 

The  Chairman,  Don't  be  coy  with  me.  General. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  being  coy,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  that  general  picture? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  239 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  I  remember  reading  in  the  paper  that 
he  had  taken  refuge  in  the  fifth  amendment  to  avoid  answering 
questions  before  the  committee. 

The  Chairman,  About  communism? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  too  certain  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  have  enough  interest 
in  the  case,  General,  the  case  of  this  major  who  was  in  your  command, 
to  get  some  idea  of  what  questions  he  had  refused  to  answer  ?  Is  that 
correct  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  that  is  not  putting  it  quite  right,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  You  put  it  right,  then. 

General  Zwicker.  I  have  great  interest  in  all  of  the  officers  of  my 
command,  with  whatever  they  do. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  stick  to  fifth-amendment  Communists,  now. 
Let's  stick  to  him.     You  told  us  you  read  the  press  releases. 

General  Zwicker.  I  did. 

The  Chairman,  But  now  you  indicate  that  you  did  not  know  that  he 
refused  to  tell  about  his  Communist  activities.     Is  that  correct '? 

General  Zwicker.  I  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions  for  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  that  he  refused  to  answer  questions 
about  his  Communist  activities? 

General  Zwicker.  Specifically,  I  don't  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  idea? 

General  Zwicker.  Of  course  I  had  an  idea. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  think  he  was  called  down  here  for? 

General  Zwicker.  For  that  specific  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  knew  that  those  were  the  questions  he  was 
asked,  did  you  not?  General,  let's  try  and  be  truthful.  I  am  going 
to  keep  you  here  as  long  as  you  keep  hedging  and  hemming. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  hedging. 

The  Chairman.  Or  hawing. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  hawing,  and  I  don't  like  to  have  anyone 
impugn  my  honesty,  which  you  just  about  did. 

The  Chairman.  Either  your  honesty  or  your  intelligence;  I  can't 
help  impugning  one  or  the  other,  when  you  tell  us  that  a  major  in  your 
command  who  was  known  to  you  to  have  been  before  a  Senate  com- 
mittee, and  of  whom  you  read  the  press  releases  very  carefully — to 
now  have  you  sit  here  and  tell  us  that  you  did  not  know  whether  he 
refused  to  answer  questions  about  Conununist  activities,  I  had  seen 
all  the  press  releases,  and  they  all  dealt  with  that.  So  when  you  do 
that.  General,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  I  cannot  help  but  question  either 
your  honesty  or  your  intelUigence,  one  or  the  other.  I  want  to  be 
frank  with  you  on  that. 

Now,  is  it  your  testimony  now  that  at  the  time  you  read  the  stories 
about  Major  Peress,  that  you  did  not  know  that  he  had  refused  to 
answer  questions  before  this  committee  about  his  Communist 
activities  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sure  I  had  that  impression. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  also  read  the  stories  about  my  letter  to 
Secretary  of  the  Army  Stevens  in  which  I  requested  or,  rather,  sug- 
gested that  this  man  be  court-martialed,  and  that  anyone  that  pro- 
tected him  or  covered  up  for  him  be  court-martialed? 


240  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairiman.  That  appeared  in  the  papers  on  Sunday  and  Mon- 
day, right  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  At  least,  it  appeared  before  he  got  his  honorable 
discharge  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  know  that  that  was  true,  either,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  any  event,  you  saw  it  in  a  current  paper,  did 
you? 

General  Zwicker.  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  see  the  story  later.  So  that  at  the 
time  he  was  discharged,  were  you  then  aware  of  the  fact  that  I  had 
suggested  a  court-martial  for  him  and  for  whoever  got  him  special 
consideration  ? 

General  Zwicker.  If  the  time  jibes,  I  was. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  aware  that  he  was  being  given  a  dis- 
charge on  February  2?  In  other  words,  the  day  he  was  discharged, 
were  you  aware  of  it  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wlio  ordered  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  The  Department  of  the  Army. 

The  Chairman.  "Who  in  the  Department? 

General  Zwicker.  That  I  can't  answer. 

Mr.  CoHN.  That  isn't  a  security  matter  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No.    I  don't  know.    Excuse  me. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Who  did  you  talk  to?    You  talked  to  somebody? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  CoHN.  How  did  you  know  he  should  be  discharged  ? 

General  Zwicker.  You  also  have  a  copy  of  this.  I  don't  know  why 
you  asked  me  for  it.  This  is  the  order  under  which  he  was  discharged, 
a  copy  of  that  order. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  minute. 

You  are  referring  to  an  order  of  January  19. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  sure,  sir.    Just  a  moment. 

The  Chairman.  January  18.  Will  you  tell  me  whether  or  not  you 
were  at  all  concerned  about  the  fact  that  this  man  was  getting  an 
honorable  discharge  after  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Investigating 
Committee  had  suggested  to  the  Department  of  the  Army  that  he  be 
court-martialed  ?    Did  that  give  you  any  concern  ? 

General  Z\\^CKER.  It  may  have  concerned  me,  but  it  could  not  have 
changed  anything  that  was  done  in  carrying  out  this  order. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  any  steps  to  have  him  retained  until 
the  Secretary  of  the  Army  could  decide  whether  he  should  be  court- 
martialed  ? 

General  Zavicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  you  should  ? 

General  Z"\^t:cker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  have  taken  such  steps  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  there  is  nothing  you  could  have 
done ;  is  that  your  statement  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  my  opinion. 

Mr.  Eainville.  May  I  interrupt  a  minute?  Doesn't  that  order 
specifically  state  that  this  is  subject  to  your  check  as  to  whether  he 
is  in  good  health  and  can  be  discharged  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  241 

General  Zwicker,  May  I  read  it  ? 

Mr.  Rainville.  I  read  the  order.    It  is  in  there. 

General  Zwicker.  Paragraph  5  of  this  order  states : 

Officer  will  not  be  separated  prior  to  determination  that  he  is  physically  quali- 
fied for  separation  by  your  headquarters. 

Mr.  Rainville.  That  is  a  decision  that  yon  must  make  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Not  me  personally.    My  medical  officers. 

Mr.  Rainville.  But  he  would  report  to  you.  He  would  not  make 
the  decision  without  giving  you,  the  commanding  general,  the  order 
for  final  verification  ? 

General  Zwicker.  It  would  not  be  necessary.  If  something  were 
found  wrong  physically  with  the  man,  he  would  be  retained. 

Mr.  Rain\t[lle.  He  would  report  to  you  ? 

General  Z"wicker.  No.    He  would  be  retained. 

Mr.  Rainville.  It  would  be  automatic,  and  you  would  not  have  to 
sign  anything? 

General  Zwicker.  I  would  not  personally,  no.  The  medical  officer 
would  make  such  a  report. 

Mr.  Rainville.  But  there  was  somebody  in  your  outfit  who  could 
say,  "This  man  can  go  out  or  can't  go  out,"  and  that  was  the  doctor? 

General  Zwicker.  He  could  not  keep  him  in  if  he  were  physically 
qualified  for  separation. 

Mr.  Rainville.  But  he  could  say  he  could  not  go  out,  so  that  there 
was  discretion  within  that  90-day  period. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  this  question:  If  this  man,  after  the 
order  came  up,  after  the  order  of  the  18th  came  up,  prior  to  his  get- 
ting an  honorable  discharge,  were  guilty  of  some  crime — let  us  say 
that  he  held  up  a  bank  or  stole  an  automobile — and  you  heard  of  that 
the  day  before — let  us  say  you  heard  of  it  the  same  day  that  you  heard 
of  my  letter — could  you  then  have  taken  steps  to  prevent  his  discharge, 
or  would  he  have  automatically  been  discharged  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  would  have  definitely  taken  steps  to  prevent 
discharge. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  if  you  found  that  he  was  guilty  of 
improper  conduct,  conduct  unbecoming  an  officer,  we  will  say,  then 
you  would  not  have  allowed  the  honorable  discharge  to  go  through, 
would  you  ? 

General  Zwicker.  If  it  were  outside  the  directive  of  this  order  ? 

The  Chairman.  Well,  yes,  let  us  s^iy  it  were  outside  the  directive. 

General  Zwicker.  Then  I  certainly  would  never  have  discharged 
him  until  that  part  of  the  case 

The  Chahcsian.  Let  us  say  he  went  out  and  stole  $50  the  night 
before. 

General  Zwicker.  He  wouldn't  have  been  discharged. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  stealing  $50  is  more  serious  than  being 
a  traitor  to  the  country  as  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That,  sir,  was  not  my  decision. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  if  you  learned  that  he  stole  $50,  you  would 
have  prevented  his  discharge.  You  did  learn  something  much  more 
serious  than  that.  You  learned  that  he  had  refused  to  tell  whether  he 
was  a  Communist.  You  learned  that  the  chairman  of  a  Senate  com- 
mittee suggested  he  be  court-martialed.  And  you  say  if  he  had  stolen 
$50  he  would  not  have  gotten  the  honorable  discharge.  But  merely 
being  a  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  and  the  chairman  of  the 


242  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

committee  asking  that  he  be  court-martialed,  would  not  give  you 
grounds  for  holdnig  up  his  discharge.    Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  Under  the  terms  of  this  letter,  that  is  correct,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  That  letter  says  nothing  about  stealing  $50,  and  it 
does  not  say  anj'thing  about  being  a  Communist.  It  does  not  say  any- 
thing about  his  appearance  before  our  connnittee.  He  appeared  before 
our  committee  after  that  order  was  made  out. 

Do  you  think  you  sound  a  bit  ridiculous,  General,  when  you  say  that 
for  $50,  you  would  prevent  his  being  discharged,  but  for  being  a  part 
of  the  conspiracy  to  destroy  this  country  you  could  not  prevent  his 
discharge  ? 

General  Zvncjs.F,R.  I  did  not  say  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  go  over  that.  You  did  say  if  you  found  out 
he  stole  $50  the  night  before,  he  would  not  have  gotten  an  honorable 
discharge  the  next  morning? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  learn,  did  you  not,  from  the  newspaper 
reports,  that  this  man  was  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  or  at 
least  that  there  was  strong  evidence  that  he  was.  Did  you  not  think 
that  was  more  serious  than  the  theft  of  $50  ? 

General  Zwicker.  He  has  never  been  tried  for  that,  sir,  and  there 
was  evidence,  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Don't  you  give  me  doubletalk.  The  $50  case,  that 
he  had  stolen  the  night  before,  he  has  not  been  tried  for  that. 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct.    He  didn't  steal  it  yet. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  wait  until  he  was  tried  for  stealing  the 
$50  before  you  prevented  his  honorable  discharge  ? 

( reneral  Zwicker.  Either  tried  or  exonerated. 

The  Chaikman.  You  would  hold  up  the  discharge  until  he  was  tried 
or  exonerated? 

General  Zwicker.  For  stealing  the  $50 ;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  if  you  heard  that  tliis  man  was  a  traitor — in 
other  words,  instead  of  hearing  that  he  had  stolen  $50  from  the  corner 
store,  let  us  say  you  heard  that  he  was  a  traitor,  he  belonged  to  the 
Communist  conspiracy ;  that  a  Senate  committee  had  the  sworn  testi- 
mony to  that  effect.  Then  would  you  hold  up  his  discharge  until  he 
was  either  exonerated  or  tried  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  going  to  answer  that  question,  I  don't 
believe,  the  way  you  want  it,  sir. 

The  CHAHiMAN.  I  just  want  you  to  tell  me  the  truth. 

General  Zwicker.  On  all  of  the  evidence  or  anything  that  had  been 
presented  to  me  as  Commanding  General  of  Camp  Kilmer,  I  had  no 
authority  to  retain  him  in  the  service. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  if  you  had  heard  that  he  had  stolen 
$50,  then  you  could  order  him  retained.  But  when  you  heard  that  he 
was  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  that  subsequent  to  the  time  the 
orders  were  issued  a  Senate  committee  took  the  evidence  under  oath 
that  he  was  part  of  the  conspiracy,  you  say  that  would  not  allow  you 
to  hold  up  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  was  never  officially  informed  by  anyone  that  he 
was  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  Mr.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  let's  see  now.  You  say  you  were  never  offi- 
cially informed? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  243 

General  Zwicker.  No. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  heard  that  he  had  stolen  $50  from  someone 
down  the  street,  if  you  did  not  hear  it  officially,  then  could  you  hold 
up  his  discharge?     Or  is  there  same  peculiar  way  you  must  hear  it? 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  so,  yes,  sir,  until  I  was  satisfied  that  he 
had  or  hadn't,  one  way  or  the  other. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  need  any  official  notification  so  far 
far  as  the  50  bucks  is  concerned  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  say  insofar  as  the  Communist  conspiracy 
is  concerned,  you  need  an  official  notification  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir ;  because  I  was  acting  on  an  official  order, 
having  precedence  over  that. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  $50  ?  If  one  of  your  men  came  in  a 
half  hour  before  he  got  his  honorable  discharge  and  said,  "General",  I 
just  heard  downtown  from  a  police  officer  that  this  man  broke  into  a 
store  last  night  and  stole  $50,"  you  would  not  give  him  an  honorable 
discharge  until  you  had  checked  the  case  and  found  out  whether  that 
was  true  or  not ;  would  you  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  would  expect  the  authorities  from  downtown  to 
inform  me  of  that  or,  let's  say,  someone  in  a  position  to  suspect  that 
he  did  it. 

The  Chairman.  Let's  say  one  of  the  trusted  privates  in  your  com- 
mand came  in  to  you  and  said,  "General,  I  was  just  downtown  and  I 
have  evidence  that  Major  Peress  broke  into  a  store  and  stole  $50." 
You  would  not  discharge  him  until  you  had  checked  the  facts,  seen 
whether  or  not  the  private  was  telling  the  truth  and  seen  whether  or 
not  he  had  stolen  the  $50  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No;  I  don't  believe  I  would.  I  would  make  a 
check,  certainly,  to  check  the  story. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  tell  us.  General,  why  $50  is  so  much 
more  important  to  you  than  being  part  of  the  conspiracy  to  destroy  a 
nation  which  you  are  sworn  to  defend  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not,  and  you  know  that  as 
well  as  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  I  certainly  do.  That  is  why  I  cannot  understand 
you  sitting  there,  General,  a  General  in  the  Army,  and  telling  me  that 
you  could  not,  would  not,  hold  up  his  discharge  having  received 
information 

General  Zwicker.  I  could  not  hold  up  his  discharge. 

The  Chairman.  Why  could  you  not  do  it  in  the  case  of  an  allegation 
of  membership  in  a  Communist  conspiracy,  where  you  could  if  you 
merely  heard  some  private's  word  that  he  had  stolen  $50  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Because,  Mr.  Senator,  any  information  that 
appeared  in  the  press  or  any  releases  was  well  known  to  me  and  well 
known  to  plenty  of  other  people  long  prior  to  the  time  that  you  ever 
called  this  man  for  investigation,  and  there  were  no  facts  or  no  alle- 
gations, nothing  presented  from  the  time  that  he  appeared  before  your 
first  investigation  that  was  not  apparent  prior  to  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  as  you  sat  here  this  morning  and 
listened  to  the  testimony  you  heard  nothing  new  ? 

Mr.  CoHN.  Nothing  substantially  new? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  believe  so. 


244         HEARINGS  ON  SENATE  RESOLUTION  301 

The  CsAniMAisr.  So  that  all  of  these  facts  were  known  at  the  time 
he  was  ordered  to  receive  an  honorable  discharge  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  believe  they  are  all  on  record ;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think,  General,  that  anyone  who  is  respon- 
sible for  giving  an  honorable  discharge  to  a  man  who  has  been  named 
under  oath  as  a  member  of  the  Commimist  conspiracy  should  himself 
be  removed  from  the  military  ? 

General  Zwicker.  You  are  speaking  of  generalities  now,  and  not 
on  specifics — is  that  right,  sir,  not  mentioning  about  any  one  par- 
ticular person  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  right. 

General  Zwicker.  I  have  no  brief  for  that  kind  of  person,  and  if 
there  exists  or  has  existed  something  in  the  system  that  permits  that, 
I  say  that  that  is  wrong. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  system.  I  am  asking 
you  this  question,  General,  a  very  simple  question :  Let  us  assume  that 
John  Jones,  who  is  a  major  in  the  United  States  Army 

General  Zwicker.  A  what,  sir  ? 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  assume  that  John  Jones  is  a  major  in  the 
United  States  Army.  Let  us  assume  that  there  is  sworn  testimony 
to  the  effect  that  he  is  part  of  the  Communist  conspiracy,  has  attended 
Communist  leadership  schools.  Let  us  assume  that  Maj,  John  Jones 
is  under  oath  before  a  committee  and  says,  "I  cannot  tell  you  the  truth 
about  these  charges  because,  if  I  did,  I  fear  that  might  tend  to  incrimi- 
nate me."  Then  let  us  say  that  General  Smith  was  responsible  for 
this  man  receiving  an  honorable  discharge,  knowing  these  facts.  Do 
you  think  that  General  Smith  should  be  removed  from  the  military, 
or  do  you  think  he  should  be  kept  on  in  it  ? 

General  Zwicker.  He  should  be  by  all  means  kept  if  he  were  acting 
under  competent  orders  to  separate  that  man. 

The  Chairman,  Let  us  say  he  is  the  man  who  signed  the  orders. 
Let  us  say  General  Smith  is  the  man  who  originated  the  order. 

General  Zwicker.  Originated  the  order  directing  his  separation? 

The  Chairman.  Directing  his  honorable  discharge. 

General  Zwicker.  Well,  that  is  pretty  hypothetical. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  pretty  real.  General. 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  on  one  point,  yes.  I  mean,  on  an  individual, 
yes.  But  you  know  that  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  people 
being  separated  daily  from  our  Army. 

The  Chairman.  General,  you  understand  my  question 

General  Zwicker.  Maybe  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  are  going  to  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Repeat  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  repeat  it. 

(The  question  referred  to  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  not  a  question  for  me  to  decide.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer  it.  General.  You  are 
an  employee  of  the  people. 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  a  rather  important  job.  I  want  to  know 
how  you  feel  about  getting  rid  of  Communists. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  all  for  it. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  245 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  You  will  answer  that  question,  unless 
you  take  the  fifth  amendment.  I  do  not  care  how  long  we  stay  here, 
you  are  going  to  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Do  you  mean  how  I  feel  toward  Communists  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  exactly  what  I  asked  you,  General ;  nothing 
else.  And  anyone  with  the  brains  of  a  5-year-old  child  can  understand 
that  question. 

The  reporter  will  read  it  to  you  as  often  as  you  need  to  hear  it  so  that 
you  can  answer  it,  and  then  you  will  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  Start  it  over,  please. 

(The  question  was  reread  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  I  do  not  think  he  should  be  removed  from  the 
military. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  General,  you  should  be  removed  from  any 
command.  Any  man  who  has  been  given  the  honor  of  being  promoted 
to  general  and  who  says,  "I  will  protect  another  general  who  protected 
Communists,"  is  not  fit  to  wear  that  uniform.  General.  I  think  it  is  a 
tremendous  disgrace  to  the  Army  to  have  this  sort  of  thing  given  to  the 
public.  I  intend  to  give  it  to  them.  I  have  a  duty  to  do  that.  I 
intend  to  repeat  to  the  press  exactly  what  you  said.  So  you  know 
that.     You  will  be  back  here.  General. 

Do  you  know  who  initiated  the  order  for  the  honorable  discharge 
of  this  major? 

General  Zwicker.  As  a  person,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  tried  to  find  out  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  discussed  that  matter  with  Mr.  Adams  ? 

General  Zwicker.  As  a  person,  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  discuss  it  with  him  other  than  as  a 
person  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  mean  as  an  individual.  This  is  a  Department 
of  the  Army  order. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  tried  to  find  out  who  is  responsible  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Who  signed  this  order? 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  responsible  for  the  order  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  curious  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Frankly,  no. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  fully  satisfied,  then,  when  you  got  the 
order  to  give  an  honorable  discharge  to  this  Communist  major? 

General  Zwicker,  I  am  sorry,  sir  ? 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question. 

(The  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

General  Zwicker.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was. 

Mr.  Cohn.  General,  I  have  just  one  or  two  questions. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  one  question. 

In  other  words,  you  think  it  is  proper  to  give  an  honorable  dis- 
charge to  a  man  known  to  be  a  Communist  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Wliy  do  you  think  it  is  proper  in  this  case? 

General  Zwicker.  Because  I  was  ordered  to  do  so. 


246  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  anything  that  you  are  ordered  to 
do,  you  think  is  proper? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct.  Anything  that  I  am  ordered 
to  do  by  higher  authority,  I  must  accept. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  the  higher  authority  would  be 
guilty  of  improper  conduct? 

General  Zwicker.  It  is  conceivable. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  they  are  guilty  of  improper  conduct 
here? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  not  their  judge,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  3'ou  think  to  order  the  honorable  discharge  for 
a  Communist  major  was  improper  conduct? 

General  Zwicker.  I  think  it  was  improper  procedure,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  is  improper? 

Mr.  CoHN.  General,  I  just  want  to  ask  you  this:  Peress  was  dis- 
charged on  February  2,  which  was  a  Tuesday. 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  CoHN.  He  appeared  before  the  committee  on  Saturday.  On 
Monday  or  Tuesday,  did  you  speak  to  anybody  in  the  Department  of 
the  Army  in  Washington,  telephonically,  about  the  Peress  case  ?  On 
Monday  or  Tuesday  ? 

General  Zwicker.  Let  me  think  a  minute. 

It  is  possible  that  I  called  First  Army  to  inform  them  that  Peress 
had  changed  his  mind  and  desired  a  discharge  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Who  would  you  have  told  in  the  First  Army?  Wlia 
would  you  call  ?     G-2,  or  General  Burress  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  think  in  that  case  I  would  call  General 
Burress. 

Mr.  CoHN.  General  Seabree? 

General  Zwicker.  No.  It  would  have  been  G-1,  or  Deputy  Chief 
of  Staff. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Who  is  that? 

General  Zwicker.  General  Gurney. 

Mr.  CoiiN.  You  don't  remember  which  one  it  was? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall  that  I  called. 

Mr.  CoiiN.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Adams  in  those  days  ? 

General  Zavicker.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Mr.  Adams  before  yesterday? 
You  recall  whether  or  not  you  spoke  to  him. 

General  Zwicker.  I  know  Mr.  Adams,  yes.  There  was  one  call, 
but  I  think  that  came  from  a  member  of  your  committee,  from  Wash- 
ington, requesting  that  this  man  appear  before  your  committee  first. 

The  Chairman.  You  understand  the  question.  Did  you  talk  to 
Mr.  Adams  before  yesterday  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  recall.     I  don't  believe  so,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  to  anyone  in  Washington? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir,  about  this  case. 

The  Chairman.  Within  the  week  preceding  his  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  at  any  time  ever  object  to  this  man  being 
honorably  discharged  ? 

General  Zavicker.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer  it. 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  on  the  grounds  of  this  Executive  order. 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  247 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  answer.  That  is  a  personnel 
matter. 

General  Zwicker.  I  shall  still  respectfully  decline  to  answer  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  take  any  steps  which  would  have  aided 
him  in  continuing  in  the  military  after  you  knew  that  he  was  a  Com- 
munist? 

General  Zwicker.  That  would  have  aided  him  in  continuing,  sir? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  do  anything  instrumental  in  his  ob- 
taining his  promotion  after  knowing  that  he  was  a  fifth-amendment 
case  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  object  to  his  being  promoted? 

General  Zwicker.  I  had  no  opportunity  to,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  enter  any  objection  to  the  promotion 
of  this  man  under  your  command? 

General  Zwicker.  I  had  no  opportunity  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  clid  not ;  is  that  correct  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman,  And  you  refuse  to  tell  us  whether  you  objected  to 
his  obtaining  an  honorable  discharge? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  believe  that  is  quite  the  way  the  question 
was  phrased  before. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  answer  it  again,  then. 

General  Zwicker.  I  respectfully  request  that  I  not  answer  that 
question. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  ordered  to  answer. 

General  Zwicker.  Under  the  same  authority  as  cited  before,  I  can- 
not answer  it. 

Mr.  CoHN.  Did  anybody  on  your  staff.  General — Colonel  Brown  or 
anyone  in  G-2 — communicate  with  the  Department  of  tlie  Army  on 
February  1  or  February  2?  In  other  words,  in  connection  with  the 
discharge  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  don't  know,  but  I  don't  believe  so. 

Mr.  CoHN.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  no? 

General  Zwicker.  No. 

Mr.  CoHN.  In  other  words,  on  January  18,  1954,  you  received  a 
direction  from  the  Secretary,  signed  by  the  Adjutant  General,  I  as- 
sume that  is  General  Bergin,  telling  you  to  give  this  man  an  honoral)]e 
discharge  from  the  Army  at  any  practicable  date,  depending  on  his 
desire,  but  in  no  event  later  than  90  days;  that  that  was  the  order,  and 
you  had  nothing  from  the  order  to  change  that  order  in  view  of  his 
testimony  before  the  committee ;  and  therefore,  when  the  man  came  in 
and  wanted  an  honorable  discharge,  you  felt  under  this  order  com- 
pelled to  give  it  to  him  as  a  decision  that  had  been  made  by  the 
Adjutant  General.     Is  that  correct? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  CoHN.  And  you  received  no  additional  words  from  the  Adju- 
tant General  on  February  1  or  February  2,  and  before  you  gave  the 
discharge  you  did  not  call  and  say,  "In  view  of  all  of  tliis,  and  his 
testimony  on  Saturday,  and  Senator  McCarthy's  request  for  a  court- 
ma  rf  in  1.  fliis  man  i<?  in  here  now,  and  is  that  all  right?"  You  never 
made  any  such  call  ? 


248  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

General  Zwicker.  No  ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Rainville.  General,  I  think  at  one  place  there  you  said  he 
changed  his  request  to  an  immediate  discharge  ? 
General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Then  he  had  previously  objected  to  the  discharge 
or  at  least  he  wanted  the  full  90  clays  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir.  He  requested  to  be  discharged  on 
March  31, 1  think,  which  would  make  it  60  days  from  receipt,  rather 
than  the  full  90.  He  did  not  ask  for  the  full  90,  but  he  asked  for 
what  amounted  to  60  days,  2  months. 

Mr.  Rainville.  Then  he  came  in  as  soon  as  he  testified,  and  asked 
for  an  immediate  discharge  and  it  was  processed  routinely  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Rainville.  But  you  never  thought  it  necessary  after  he  ap- 
peared before  the  committee  or  when  he  made  that  request  to  discuss 
his  appearance  before  the  committee  with  him  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Rainville.  My  question  is  this :  After  he  appeared  before  the 
committee  and  he  was  still  a  member  of  your  command,  even  though 
he  was  on  separation,  you  didn't  ask  him  to  come  in  and  report  what 
he  testified  to  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Rainville.  And  you  didn't  think  it  was  necessary  when  he 
came  in  and  asked  for  an  immediate  discharge  instead  of  60  days  to 
ask  him  what  transpired  so  as  to  get  some  kind  of  an  idea  as  to  why 
he  wanted  it  immediately,  or  why  he  is  in  a  rush  to  get  out  now  instead 
of  taking  the  60  days  that  he  wanted  before  that  ? 

General  Zwicker.  That  was  beyond  my  prerogative.     I  did  not. 

Mr.  Rainville.  As  an  officer  of  your  command,  certainly  what  we 
usually  call  the  old  man's  privilege  there,  prerogative,  they  may  ask 
that  sort  of  question,  and  so  forth,  so  long  as  he  is  one  of  your  com- 
mand.    But  you  didn't  do  it? 

General  Zwicker.  No.  He  told  me  he  wanted  to  be  released  and 
I  said,  "All  right." 

Mr.  Jones.  General,  did  the  counsel  of  the  Army  advise  you  not  to 
discuss  the  Peress  case? 

General  Zwicker.  He  did  not. 

Mr.  Jones.  He  did  not  advise  you  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  advise  you  ? 

General  Zwicker.  No  one. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  and  Mr.  Adams  talk  about  yester- 
day? 

General  Zwicker.  Mr.  Adams  and  I  talked  about  the  various  pro- 
cedures of  prior  meetings  such  as  this.  He  tried  to  indicate  what  I 
might  expect. 

Mr.  Jones.  Did  Mr.  Adams  advise  anyone  not  to  discuss  the  Peress 
case  to  this  committee? 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry.     He  did  not  advise  me. 

Mr.  Jones.  I  mean  to  your  knowledge,  did  he  advise  any  other 
person  ? 

General  Zwicker.  To  my  knowledge  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Jones.  General,  what  is  your  considered  opinion  of  this  order 
here  forbidding  you  to  assist  this  committee  in  exposing  the  Com- 
munist conspiracy  in  the  Army  ? 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  249 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  I  cannot  answer  that,  because  it  is  signed  by 
the  President.     The  President  says  don't  do  it  and  therefore  I  don't. 

Mr.  Jones.  What  is  your  considered  opinion  of  that  order?  You 
see  now,  here  is  a  perfectly  good  example  of  a  Communist  being  pro- 
moted right  in  the  ranks,  all  because  of  this  Executive  order  here,  in 
many  respects,  where  we  could  not  get  at  these  things  earlier.  What 
is  your  considered  opinion  of  an  order  of  that  nature  ? 

General  Zwicker.  I  won't  answer  that,  because  I  will  not  criticize 
my  Commander  in  Chief. 

The  Chairman.  General,  you  will  return  for  a  public  session  at 
10 :  30  Tuesday  morning. 

General  Zwicker.  This  coming  Tuesday  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker.  Here? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

General  Zwicker,  At  what  time  ? 

The  Chairman.  10 :  30.  In  the  meantime,  in  accordance  with  the 
order  which  you  claim  forbids  you  the  right  to  discuss  this  case,  you 
will  contact  the  proper  authority  who  can  give  you  permission  to  tell 
the  committee  the  truth  about  the  case  before  you  appear  Tuesday, 
and  request  permission  to  be  allowed  to  tell  us  the  truth  above  the 

General  Zwicker.  Sir,  that  is  not  my  prerogative,  either. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  ordered  to  do  it. 

General  Zwicker.  I  am  sorry,  sir,  I  will  not  do  that. 

The  Cpiairman.  All  right. 

General  Zwicker.  If  you  care  to  have  me,  I  will  cite  certain  other 
portions  of  this. 

The  Chairman.  You  need  cite  nothing.    You  may  step  down. 

(Whereupon,  at  5 :  15  p.  m.,  the  committee  was  recessed,  subject  to 
the  call  of  the  Chair.) 

Mf  ^  ^  4:  4:  4:  ¥ 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  tell  me  they  are  prepared  to  treat  this 
as  an  overall  matter;  they  do  not  want  to  take  it  in  installments. 
They  want  to  see  what  the  witness  has  testified  to. 

Some  members  of  the  committee  would  like  to  ask  questions,  now, 
but  counsel  will  reserve  cross-examination  until  the  entire  testimony 
of  Senatory  McCarthy  is  in. 

Mr.  Williams.  This  will  be  more  orderly,  if  we  were  to  hear  this 
issue,  direct  and  cross. 

Now,  that  is  the  only  reason  I  suggested  it. 

The  Chairman.  They  indicated  they  were  prepared  to  cross- 
examine,  when  you  had  finished  with  his  direct. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  see.     We  certainly  yield  to  Mr.  Chadwick's  wishes. 

The  Chairman.  Does  any  Senator  wish  to  ask  questions  at  this 
point  ? 

Senator  Carlson.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Carlson. 

Senator  McCarthy.  But  before  you  start,  I  wonder  if  I  could  im- 
pose on  the  Chair  for  a  brief  recess. 

Tlie  Chairman.  We  will  take  a  10-minute  recess  at  this  point. 

(Whereupon,  at  3 :  32  p.  m.  a  16-minute  recess  was  taken.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  resume  session. 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  want  to  thank  the  Chair  for  that  recess. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  appreciated  the  recess  as  well. 


250  HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301 

Senator  Carlson  was  askino-  for  recognition  as  we  recessed. 

Senator  Carlson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wonld  just  like  to  ask  a  few 
questions  on  the  methods  of  operation  and  committee  procedure. 

I  note  from  the  hearin<^s — and  I  think  the  Senator  also  testified — 
for  instance,  on  the  ]iearino;s  on  Thursday,  Febnuiry  18,  it  is  stated 
that  present  were : 

Senator  Joseph  R.  McCarthy,  Roy  Cohn,  Daniel  Buckley,  James 
Juliana,  Harold  Rainville,  administrative  assistant  to  Senator  Dirk- 
sen,  and  Robert  Jones,  administrative  assistant  to  Senator  Potter. 

Now,  in  checkinj>-  throu«>h  these  hearinj>-s,  I  note,  for  instance,  on 
page  130  Mr.  Jones,  the  administrative  assistant  to  Senator  Potter, 
participated  in  the  interrogation,  and  I  noticed  on  page  137  a  rather 
extensive  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Rainville  of  Mr.  Peress.  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  Senator  if  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  committee  to 
permit  administrative  assistants  to  participate  in  the  cross-examina- 
tion of  witnesses. 

Senator  McCarthy.  Yes.  Whenever  a  man  was  present  represent- 
ing a  Senator,  I  felt  that  he  should  be  entitled  to  ask  questions. 

Senator  Carlson.  ]\Iay  I  ask  the  Senator  if  that  is  based  on  com- 
mittee action? 

Has  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Connnittee  on  (iovernment  Opera- 
tions, an  official  motion,  given  this  authority? 

Senator  McCarthy.  There  Avas  no  formal  action  taken  on  that. 
It  was  a  four-man  committee  then,  you  understand.  The  Democrats 
were  not  on  the  connnittee,  but  it  was  understood  I  would  allow  the 
administrative  assistants  to  cross-examine.  That  was  agreed  in  by, 
I  believe,  the  connnittee  unanimously. 

Senator  Carlson.  Do  I  understand  there  was  official  action  taken, 
for  instance,  by  the  subcommittee  of  (lOVQrnment  Operations  Com- 
mittee? 

Senator  McCarthy.  I  don't  know  if  you  would  call  it  official  or  not, 
but  it  was  not  a  formal  meeting  at  which  a  motion  was  passed.  How- 
ever, I  told  the  Senators,  if  it  \vas  all  right  with  them,  in  view  of  the 
fact  they  were  out  of  the  city  during  the  recess,  I  would  allow  their 
administrative  assistants  to  appear  and  represent  them  and  speak  for 
them  and  notify  them  each  night,  or  as  often  as  I  felt  necessary,  as  to 
what  had  transpired  during  that  day. 

One  of  the  Senators,  Senator  Mundt,  i-equested  additional  informa- 
tion. He  requested  that  the  chief  of  staff  wire  him  after  each  hearing 
and  give  him  a  resume  of  what  had  transpired.  The  other  two  Sen- 
ators were  satisfied  to  let  their  administrative  assistants  represent 
them. 

Senator  Carlson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  bring  this  up  because  I  am  a 
member  of  the  subcommittee  headed  by  Senator  Jenner,  of  Indiana, 
and  also  another  member  of  the  committee  is  Senator  Carl  Play  den 
of  Arizona,  which  has  been  holding  extensive  hearings  on  rules  and 
changes  of  committee  procedure,  and  it  seems  to  me  this  is  one  of  the 
important  matters  that  should  be  given  some  consideration,  not  only 
by  our  committee,  but  I  think,  in  view  of  the  criticism  we  are  receiv- 
ing over  the  Nation,  not  on  just  the  conduct  of  this  particular  com- 
mittee, but  committee  procedure  generaly,  there  ought  to  be  some 
firm  decision  made,  which  I  assume,  of  course,  would  have  to  be  a 
Senate  decision  on  permitting  administrative  assistants  to  sit  for 


HEARINGS    ON    SENATE    RESOLUTION    301  251 

Senators  appointed  to  the  United  States  Senate  on  committees  and 
participate  in  the  proceedings. 

I  can  readily  understand  where  an  adminis